This is the Reading Instruction Show.
I'm your host as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.
The topic of today's podcast is, you can't be just a little science of reading.
Now a warning, today's podcast contains snarky remarks and sarcastic statements.
It may not be suitable for all listeners.
Let's start with a little story.
Just upon a time, I was at a meeting with a group of professors in education from a
variety of different teacher preparation programs here in Minnesota.
And I'm sure this similar story has been played out in many different states.
The topic turned to reading instruction, in particular the read act.
Now this is a bill going through our state legislature that will force schools to buy
only that curriculum that is science of reading approved.
And note that some publishing companies are going to make lots of money here.
Now at this meeting, I expressed my displeasure for this bill.
And I explained to them quite carefully how it would negatively impact struggling readers,
high ability readers, students of color, practicing teachers, and pre-service teachers.
In fact, it would impede our ability to help all students reach their full literacy potential.
And at the same time, it would waste a hundred million dollars that could instead be used
to actually help children, actually help children develop their ability to read and write.
Well, there was silence.
And then somebody spoke up and said, there are differing opinions on that in this room.
That's fine, I said, but for the record, I don't give my opinions.
I provide research based perspectives.
Now I'm a professor of literacy at Minnesota State University here in Mankato.
It's a state university.
The state of Minnesota doesn't pay me to have opinions.
I'm paid by the state of Minnesota taxpayers to be an expert in literacy instruction so
that I can use this expertise to prepare teachers and help in the professional development
of teachers.
Now I've spent 30 years developing this expertise.
And this has included extensive reading, scholarly work, research, writing, interaction with teachers
in schools, and tutoring kids.
Yet, after listening to an Emily Hanford podcast, some state lawmakers and others feel like
they are now literacy experts.
Imagine that.
They know best how reading should be taught in Minnesota schools.
They know best how I should prepare teachers to teach reading.
Oh, I await your wisdom, you fine lawmakers.
Please tell me, guide me, I beseech you, all that I could someday listen to an Emily Hanford
podcast so that I too might become a literacy expert.
And to think how I wasted five years working on a PhD at the University of Minnesota when
I could have instead listened to an Emily Hanford podcast.
Oh, my goodness.
These wannabe experts like Emily Hanford have come to a very firm conclusion about what
reading instruction is and should be.
Imagine that.
Well, at this meeting, another professor spoke up and said, I support the science of reading
read-act.
This professor said, my daughter is a sophomore in high school and she can't read.
She doesn't know how to decode words.
Teachers are telling me that they don't know how to teach reading.
Schools are telling us that we aren't preparing our teachers to teach reading.
Okay, very fine.
Now, why don't you lose one's professor license if there were such a thing for making statements
like this.
If you're going to embrace the science of reading, you can't be just a little bit science
of reading.
You can't be partial science of reading.
You can't be somewhat science of reading.
You can't be semi science of reading.
If you are going to be a science of reading advocate, you must embrace and apply science
of reading principles completely and consistently.
In other words, if you are for the science of reading and support the read-act here in
Minnesota, then you would use the same science of reading principles to identify the reading
problem, the cause of reading problems, and the possible solution to reading problems.
But you don't.
If you are for the science of reading, then you should understand what research is, how
it's interpreted and used, as well as the limitations of research.
You should understand the difference between research and data.
You should understand the difference between research and perception, personal experience,
anecdotal evidence, and I thinkisms.
If you are for the science of reading, you should understand the importance of being
critical and responsible consumers of educational research.
And if you are really for the science of reading, you will know that conclusions should not
be made based on a single study or a few studies, rather a wide range of studies.
So let's unpack that professor's statements in four parts.
And this statement perfectly illustrates the clownerous thinking related to the alleged
science of reading.
Number one, identify the cause.
Okay, your daughter has trouble reading.
She can't decode, you say.
And I see.
So you have determined that of all the possible variables impacting her acquisition of reading,
that the cause was a lack of decoding instruction or the wrong kind of decoding instruction
or not enough decoding instruction, you've determined that of all the variables, this
is the causal factor.
And what's more, you've determined that if this is the causal factor for your daughter,
then it must be the causal factor for all struggling readers in Minnesota.
Okay, well and good, but this certainly is not very sciency.
Number two, solution.
You've also found the solution, more decoding instruction out of all the elements that make
up good evidence-based reading instruction, you have decided based on your daughter's
experience and what people are telling you that more decoding instruction is the solution.
It's the solution not only for your daughter, but for all students.
You're generalizing to an entire population based on a study of one.
Okay, that's fine, but again, it's not very sciency.
As well, you're ignoring the years of research findings of groups like the International Literacy
Association and the National Council of Teachers of English.
You have defined both the cause and the solution to everybody's reading problems.
Now you certainly are special, but that's not very sciency.
The third one is anecdotal evidence.
A lot of parents are telling me, you say, that their kids are struggling with reading,
you say.
They don't know how to decode, you say.
And again, I see your point, but this is anecdotal evidence.
People are giving you anecdotes and you are coming to conclusion based on anecdotes.
Now what if this kind of thinking were used in medicine?
You would say, oh, a lot of people are getting sick in the winter and they've never had
leeches put on them.
We need to start putting leeches on people.
I knew some people who used leeches and they didn't get sick.
And my friends are telling me that they use leeches and when they got sick after two months,
they were better.
Doctors aren't being trained in how to put leeches on people.
We need to mandate leech instruction in our medical schools.
We need to pass a law that doctors need to use leech methods.
I know this because I heard this on an Emily Hanford podcast.
Number four, the problem.
There's a crisis in reading, they say.
Everybody's failing, they say.
The sky is falling, they say.
Okay.
Show me some valid data.
This is a basic reading science principle.
Conclusions about things should be made based on valid and reliable data.
Now if you look at some valid data for reading achievement collected over time, like the
US department's national assessment of educational progress, NAEP, you'll find that there will
be a normal fluctuation in scores in the short term.
This is what's called normal.
But over time, reading scores have risen slightly since 1972.
Now here in Minnesota, they claimed that our students were reading below grade level
average.
Well, of course, if you use norm reference tests, 50% of students are going to be below
the mean.
That's called a normal population.
But in fact, Minnesota was consistently above the national average.
So how could they all be reading below grade level?
As well, criterion reference tests are often used, but these are not good to use to show
change over time when the test content, criterion levels are all arbitrarily defined and the
test change from year to year.
Now at this meeting of professors of education, I brought up the shortcomings of using personal
experience and anecdotal evidence to come to conclusions and to make decisions.
Well, another professor informed me that qualitative research certainly uses interviews and surveys
and observations and personal experiences, so they should not be discounted.
And I aside, now I could have said that universities are doing a poor job of preparing education
professors, but this would be a conclusion based on anecdotal evidence.
So I didn't.
They should know research is different from collecting data.
Research is not research unless it has been subjected to blind peer review and published
in an academic journal or some other reputable source.
And again, you can't be just a little sciency.
If you are a staunch science of reading advocate, you should know that it excludes the use of
qualitative research to identify effective reading instruction.
If you are a real science of reading advocate, then you would use the same principles to
identify effective reading instruction to determine problems, causes and solutions.
Now I could live with the science of reading or reading science if those advocates would
do this, if they were consistent with their use of reading science principles, but they're
not.
Again, you can't be just a little sciency.
Anecdotal evidence, personal accounts, I think isms and data collected out of context, not
subject to blind peer review, should not be used to make policy or program decisions.
They should not be used to come to conclusions about something as big and important as reading
instruction in the state of Minnesota.
That's just not good science.
As a matter of fact, it's not science at all.
It's ideology.
Now a basic principle of science is this, you can't generalize to a whole group based
on the experience of a small group.
You can't come to conclusions about large groups based on personal experiences and anecdotal
evidence.
So what is reading science?
Timothy Shanahan was a member of the National Reading Panel and that group published the
National Reading Panel report.
Now I don't always agree with Dr. Shanahan.
However, in a recent RRQ article, he did a very good job of defining and describing
research science or the science of reading.
And I paraphrased what he said.
He said it so wonderfully.
There are two types of science, basic science and applied science.
Basic science is that which is done outside the context in which it's used or applied.
It adds important data to theories that are in turn used to understand phenomena.
In reading, basic science would include research related to brain imaging, eye movement,
mis-Q analysis, priming studies, among other things.
This type of research is done apart from reading instruction in a classroom.
However, this kind of research is important in building robust theories.
Robust theories include a lot of research data.
Weak theories leave a lot of research data unaccounted for.
All right, that's basic science.
Publicated science is that which is applied in the setting in which it will be used and
for the purpose for which it will be used.
In reading, these would be strategies and methods examined in actual classrooms with
real students.
Now there is no singular scientific method.
Rather, there are methods of science.
There are a variety of methodologies used to examine the world in which we live.
In reading instruction, there are a variety of methods used to ask and answer questions
related to reading instruction.
The questions you impact, impact the methods you use.
However, if you are limited to only a certain type of method, you could only ask certain
types of questions that are answerable by that method.
Hence the exclusive reliance on one type of research severely limits the types of questions
asked and the data collected and how that data are interpreted.
Now as the science of reading defines reading science, the only research method that should
be used to identify effective reading instruction is controlled experimental research.
This is where you have a control group and an experimental group.
Everything is the same about the two groups except for the one treatment variable you
wish to examine.
And at the end of the experiment, if there is a measurable difference between the two
groups and if that difference is statistically significant, then you can say with some degree
of confidence that the treatment variable led to the difference.
This is the only kind of research that can be used to determine what is effective according
to the science of reading.
Reading science is that which uses controlled experimental research in authentic learning
environments to determine which methods, strategies, approaches, or pedagogy are effective for
reading instruction.
While I think this provides a very narrow view, I could live with it if these same science
principles were correctly and consistently applied.
But they're not.
There is a certain amount of ignorance related to reading, reading research, science, and
reading science.
This is mixed with a dangerous combination of ideology and I thinkisms.
So you have the three eyes, ignorance, ideology, and I thinkisms.
And where these three overlap, you have clownery.
So we are left to conclude that the science of reading is understood and promoted by some
here in Minnesota is clownery.
This has been the Reading Instruction Show.
I'm your host as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.