1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,960
This is the Reading Instruction Show.

2
00:00:02,960 --> 00:00:08,040
I'm your host as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.

3
00:00:08,040 --> 00:00:15,320
The topic of today's podcast is, you can't be just a little science of reading.

4
00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:22,400
Now a warning, today's podcast contains snarky remarks and sarcastic statements.

5
00:00:22,400 --> 00:00:25,960
It may not be suitable for all listeners.

6
00:00:25,960 --> 00:00:27,920
Let's start with a little story.

7
00:00:27,920 --> 00:00:34,040
Just upon a time, I was at a meeting with a group of professors in education from a

8
00:00:34,040 --> 00:00:39,520
variety of different teacher preparation programs here in Minnesota.

9
00:00:39,520 --> 00:00:46,280
And I'm sure this similar story has been played out in many different states.

10
00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:53,440
The topic turned to reading instruction, in particular the read act.

11
00:00:53,440 --> 00:01:00,120
Now this is a bill going through our state legislature that will force schools to buy

12
00:01:00,120 --> 00:01:05,680
only that curriculum that is science of reading approved.

13
00:01:05,680 --> 00:01:12,440
And note that some publishing companies are going to make lots of money here.

14
00:01:12,440 --> 00:01:18,720
Now at this meeting, I expressed my displeasure for this bill.

15
00:01:18,720 --> 00:01:26,200
And I explained to them quite carefully how it would negatively impact struggling readers,

16
00:01:26,200 --> 00:01:34,440
high ability readers, students of color, practicing teachers, and pre-service teachers.

17
00:01:34,440 --> 00:01:42,040
In fact, it would impede our ability to help all students reach their full literacy potential.

18
00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:48,520
And at the same time, it would waste a hundred million dollars that could instead be used

19
00:01:48,520 --> 00:01:57,000
to actually help children, actually help children develop their ability to read and write.

20
00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:00,880
Well, there was silence.

21
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:09,960
And then somebody spoke up and said, there are differing opinions on that in this room.

22
00:02:09,960 --> 00:02:15,080
That's fine, I said, but for the record, I don't give my opinions.

23
00:02:15,080 --> 00:02:19,560
I provide research based perspectives.

24
00:02:19,560 --> 00:02:24,920
Now I'm a professor of literacy at Minnesota State University here in Mankato.

25
00:02:24,920 --> 00:02:27,720
It's a state university.

26
00:02:27,720 --> 00:02:33,680
The state of Minnesota doesn't pay me to have opinions.

27
00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:40,760
I'm paid by the state of Minnesota taxpayers to be an expert in literacy instruction so

28
00:02:40,760 --> 00:02:48,800
that I can use this expertise to prepare teachers and help in the professional development

29
00:02:48,800 --> 00:02:51,000
of teachers.

30
00:02:51,000 --> 00:02:55,080
Now I've spent 30 years developing this expertise.

31
00:02:55,080 --> 00:03:04,680
And this has included extensive reading, scholarly work, research, writing, interaction with teachers

32
00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:09,240
in schools, and tutoring kids.

33
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:17,160
Yet, after listening to an Emily Hanford podcast, some state lawmakers and others feel like

34
00:03:17,160 --> 00:03:21,000
they are now literacy experts.

35
00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:22,640
Imagine that.

36
00:03:22,640 --> 00:03:27,160
They know best how reading should be taught in Minnesota schools.

37
00:03:27,160 --> 00:03:31,800
They know best how I should prepare teachers to teach reading.

38
00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:35,600
Oh, I await your wisdom, you fine lawmakers.

39
00:03:35,600 --> 00:03:42,160
Please tell me, guide me, I beseech you, all that I could someday listen to an Emily Hanford

40
00:03:42,160 --> 00:03:47,560
podcast so that I too might become a literacy expert.

41
00:03:47,560 --> 00:03:55,320
And to think how I wasted five years working on a PhD at the University of Minnesota when

42
00:03:55,320 --> 00:04:00,320
I could have instead listened to an Emily Hanford podcast.

43
00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:04,120
Oh, my goodness.

44
00:04:04,120 --> 00:04:10,320
These wannabe experts like Emily Hanford have come to a very firm conclusion about what

45
00:04:10,320 --> 00:04:13,720
reading instruction is and should be.

46
00:04:13,720 --> 00:04:14,920
Imagine that.

47
00:04:14,920 --> 00:04:23,720
Well, at this meeting, another professor spoke up and said, I support the science of reading

48
00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:24,720
read-act.

49
00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:31,880
This professor said, my daughter is a sophomore in high school and she can't read.

50
00:04:31,880 --> 00:04:35,280
She doesn't know how to decode words.

51
00:04:35,280 --> 00:04:39,200
Teachers are telling me that they don't know how to teach reading.

52
00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:43,760
Schools are telling us that we aren't preparing our teachers to teach reading.

53
00:04:43,760 --> 00:04:46,160
Okay, very fine.

54
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:52,440
Now, why don't you lose one's professor license if there were such a thing for making statements

55
00:04:52,440 --> 00:04:54,640
like this.

56
00:04:54,640 --> 00:05:00,600
If you're going to embrace the science of reading, you can't be just a little bit science

57
00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:01,600
of reading.

58
00:05:01,600 --> 00:05:03,920
You can't be partial science of reading.

59
00:05:03,920 --> 00:05:06,680
You can't be somewhat science of reading.

60
00:05:06,680 --> 00:05:09,960
You can't be semi science of reading.

61
00:05:09,960 --> 00:05:16,960
If you are going to be a science of reading advocate, you must embrace and apply science

62
00:05:16,960 --> 00:05:22,920
of reading principles completely and consistently.

63
00:05:22,920 --> 00:05:28,880
In other words, if you are for the science of reading and support the read-act here in

64
00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:36,560
Minnesota, then you would use the same science of reading principles to identify the reading

65
00:05:36,560 --> 00:05:44,440
problem, the cause of reading problems, and the possible solution to reading problems.

66
00:05:44,440 --> 00:05:46,880
But you don't.

67
00:05:46,880 --> 00:05:53,680
If you are for the science of reading, then you should understand what research is, how

68
00:05:53,680 --> 00:06:00,160
it's interpreted and used, as well as the limitations of research.

69
00:06:00,160 --> 00:06:05,440
You should understand the difference between research and data.

70
00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:11,680
You should understand the difference between research and perception, personal experience,

71
00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:16,280
anecdotal evidence, and I thinkisms.

72
00:06:16,280 --> 00:06:22,680
If you are for the science of reading, you should understand the importance of being

73
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:28,840
critical and responsible consumers of educational research.

74
00:06:28,840 --> 00:06:35,760
And if you are really for the science of reading, you will know that conclusions should not

75
00:06:35,760 --> 00:06:44,680
be made based on a single study or a few studies, rather a wide range of studies.

76
00:06:44,680 --> 00:06:50,400
So let's unpack that professor's statements in four parts.

77
00:06:50,400 --> 00:06:58,720
And this statement perfectly illustrates the clownerous thinking related to the alleged

78
00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:02,120
science of reading.

79
00:07:02,120 --> 00:07:04,960
Number one, identify the cause.

80
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:08,320
Okay, your daughter has trouble reading.

81
00:07:08,320 --> 00:07:10,760
She can't decode, you say.

82
00:07:10,760 --> 00:07:12,100
And I see.

83
00:07:12,100 --> 00:07:20,120
So you have determined that of all the possible variables impacting her acquisition of reading,

84
00:07:20,120 --> 00:07:27,200
that the cause was a lack of decoding instruction or the wrong kind of decoding instruction

85
00:07:27,200 --> 00:07:35,040
or not enough decoding instruction, you've determined that of all the variables, this

86
00:07:35,040 --> 00:07:38,000
is the causal factor.

87
00:07:38,000 --> 00:07:43,840
And what's more, you've determined that if this is the causal factor for your daughter,

88
00:07:43,840 --> 00:07:50,400
then it must be the causal factor for all struggling readers in Minnesota.

89
00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:58,360
Okay, well and good, but this certainly is not very sciency.

90
00:07:58,360 --> 00:08:00,840
Number two, solution.

91
00:08:00,840 --> 00:08:10,040
You've also found the solution, more decoding instruction out of all the elements that make

92
00:08:10,040 --> 00:08:17,080
up good evidence-based reading instruction, you have decided based on your daughter's

93
00:08:17,080 --> 00:08:25,120
experience and what people are telling you that more decoding instruction is the solution.

94
00:08:25,120 --> 00:08:32,280
It's the solution not only for your daughter, but for all students.

95
00:08:32,280 --> 00:08:38,240
You're generalizing to an entire population based on a study of one.

96
00:08:38,240 --> 00:08:44,840
Okay, that's fine, but again, it's not very sciency.

97
00:08:44,840 --> 00:08:50,600
As well, you're ignoring the years of research findings of groups like the International Literacy

98
00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:56,080
Association and the National Council of Teachers of English.

99
00:08:56,080 --> 00:09:04,560
You have defined both the cause and the solution to everybody's reading problems.

100
00:09:04,560 --> 00:09:11,280
Now you certainly are special, but that's not very sciency.

101
00:09:11,280 --> 00:09:14,680
The third one is anecdotal evidence.

102
00:09:14,680 --> 00:09:19,280
A lot of parents are telling me, you say, that their kids are struggling with reading,

103
00:09:19,280 --> 00:09:20,280
you say.

104
00:09:20,280 --> 00:09:23,440
They don't know how to decode, you say.

105
00:09:23,440 --> 00:09:29,880
And again, I see your point, but this is anecdotal evidence.

106
00:09:29,880 --> 00:09:37,080
People are giving you anecdotes and you are coming to conclusion based on anecdotes.

107
00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:42,600
Now what if this kind of thinking were used in medicine?

108
00:09:42,600 --> 00:09:47,880
You would say, oh, a lot of people are getting sick in the winter and they've never had

109
00:09:47,880 --> 00:09:49,800
leeches put on them.

110
00:09:49,800 --> 00:09:52,760
We need to start putting leeches on people.

111
00:09:52,760 --> 00:09:57,400
I knew some people who used leeches and they didn't get sick.

112
00:09:57,400 --> 00:10:02,720
And my friends are telling me that they use leeches and when they got sick after two months,

113
00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:05,040
they were better.

114
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:08,800
Doctors aren't being trained in how to put leeches on people.

115
00:10:08,800 --> 00:10:13,680
We need to mandate leech instruction in our medical schools.

116
00:10:13,680 --> 00:10:18,720
We need to pass a law that doctors need to use leech methods.

117
00:10:18,720 --> 00:10:24,520
I know this because I heard this on an Emily Hanford podcast.

118
00:10:24,520 --> 00:10:27,480
Number four, the problem.

119
00:10:27,480 --> 00:10:30,480
There's a crisis in reading, they say.

120
00:10:30,480 --> 00:10:32,400
Everybody's failing, they say.

121
00:10:32,400 --> 00:10:35,600
The sky is falling, they say.

122
00:10:35,600 --> 00:10:37,440
Okay.

123
00:10:37,440 --> 00:10:40,740
Show me some valid data.

124
00:10:40,740 --> 00:10:44,840
This is a basic reading science principle.

125
00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:50,880
Conclusions about things should be made based on valid and reliable data.

126
00:10:50,880 --> 00:10:56,280
Now if you look at some valid data for reading achievement collected over time, like the

127
00:10:56,280 --> 00:11:02,720
US department's national assessment of educational progress, NAEP, you'll find that there will

128
00:11:02,720 --> 00:11:07,920
be a normal fluctuation in scores in the short term.

129
00:11:07,920 --> 00:11:11,000
This is what's called normal.

130
00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:18,440
But over time, reading scores have risen slightly since 1972.

131
00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:24,000
Now here in Minnesota, they claimed that our students were reading below grade level

132
00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:25,000
average.

133
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:32,920
Well, of course, if you use norm reference tests, 50% of students are going to be below

134
00:11:32,920 --> 00:11:34,920
the mean.

135
00:11:34,920 --> 00:11:39,000
That's called a normal population.

136
00:11:39,000 --> 00:11:43,920
But in fact, Minnesota was consistently above the national average.

137
00:11:43,920 --> 00:11:48,480
So how could they all be reading below grade level?

138
00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:55,200
As well, criterion reference tests are often used, but these are not good to use to show

139
00:11:55,200 --> 00:12:02,440
change over time when the test content, criterion levels are all arbitrarily defined and the

140
00:12:02,440 --> 00:12:06,000
test change from year to year.

141
00:12:06,000 --> 00:12:12,960
Now at this meeting of professors of education, I brought up the shortcomings of using personal

142
00:12:12,960 --> 00:12:18,920
experience and anecdotal evidence to come to conclusions and to make decisions.

143
00:12:18,920 --> 00:12:26,840
Well, another professor informed me that qualitative research certainly uses interviews and surveys

144
00:12:26,840 --> 00:12:34,000
and observations and personal experiences, so they should not be discounted.

145
00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:41,320
And I aside, now I could have said that universities are doing a poor job of preparing education

146
00:12:41,320 --> 00:12:46,520
professors, but this would be a conclusion based on anecdotal evidence.

147
00:12:46,520 --> 00:12:49,800
So I didn't.

148
00:12:49,800 --> 00:12:55,520
They should know research is different from collecting data.

149
00:12:55,520 --> 00:13:00,960
Research is not research unless it has been subjected to blind peer review and published

150
00:13:00,960 --> 00:13:05,120
in an academic journal or some other reputable source.

151
00:13:05,120 --> 00:13:09,160
And again, you can't be just a little sciency.

152
00:13:09,160 --> 00:13:16,560
If you are a staunch science of reading advocate, you should know that it excludes the use of

153
00:13:16,560 --> 00:13:21,840
qualitative research to identify effective reading instruction.

154
00:13:21,840 --> 00:13:28,040
If you are a real science of reading advocate, then you would use the same principles to

155
00:13:28,040 --> 00:13:36,360
identify effective reading instruction to determine problems, causes and solutions.

156
00:13:36,360 --> 00:13:44,280
Now I could live with the science of reading or reading science if those advocates would

157
00:13:44,280 --> 00:13:52,320
do this, if they were consistent with their use of reading science principles, but they're

158
00:13:52,320 --> 00:13:53,320
not.

159
00:13:53,320 --> 00:13:57,040
Again, you can't be just a little sciency.

160
00:13:57,040 --> 00:14:03,920
Anecdotal evidence, personal accounts, I think isms and data collected out of context, not

161
00:14:03,920 --> 00:14:10,920
subject to blind peer review, should not be used to make policy or program decisions.

162
00:14:10,920 --> 00:14:17,480
They should not be used to come to conclusions about something as big and important as reading

163
00:14:17,480 --> 00:14:21,520
instruction in the state of Minnesota.

164
00:14:21,520 --> 00:14:23,880
That's just not good science.

165
00:14:23,880 --> 00:14:27,360
As a matter of fact, it's not science at all.

166
00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:30,080
It's ideology.

167
00:14:30,080 --> 00:14:37,520
Now a basic principle of science is this, you can't generalize to a whole group based

168
00:14:37,520 --> 00:14:40,600
on the experience of a small group.

169
00:14:40,600 --> 00:14:46,760
You can't come to conclusions about large groups based on personal experiences and anecdotal

170
00:14:46,760 --> 00:14:48,760
evidence.

171
00:14:48,760 --> 00:14:52,960
So what is reading science?

172
00:14:52,960 --> 00:14:58,240
Timothy Shanahan was a member of the National Reading Panel and that group published the

173
00:14:58,240 --> 00:15:01,040
National Reading Panel report.

174
00:15:01,040 --> 00:15:03,880
Now I don't always agree with Dr. Shanahan.

175
00:15:03,880 --> 00:15:11,800
However, in a recent RRQ article, he did a very good job of defining and describing

176
00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:15,480
research science or the science of reading.

177
00:15:15,480 --> 00:15:17,880
And I paraphrased what he said.

178
00:15:17,880 --> 00:15:19,600
He said it so wonderfully.

179
00:15:19,600 --> 00:15:25,960
There are two types of science, basic science and applied science.

180
00:15:25,960 --> 00:15:33,920
Basic science is that which is done outside the context in which it's used or applied.

181
00:15:33,920 --> 00:15:41,280
It adds important data to theories that are in turn used to understand phenomena.

182
00:15:41,280 --> 00:15:48,120
In reading, basic science would include research related to brain imaging, eye movement,

183
00:15:48,120 --> 00:15:52,760
mis-Q analysis, priming studies, among other things.

184
00:15:52,760 --> 00:15:58,800
This type of research is done apart from reading instruction in a classroom.

185
00:15:58,800 --> 00:16:07,520
However, this kind of research is important in building robust theories.

186
00:16:07,520 --> 00:16:11,680
Robust theories include a lot of research data.

187
00:16:11,680 --> 00:16:15,280
Weak theories leave a lot of research data unaccounted for.

188
00:16:15,280 --> 00:16:17,960
All right, that's basic science.

189
00:16:17,960 --> 00:16:23,400
Publicated science is that which is applied in the setting in which it will be used and

190
00:16:23,400 --> 00:16:26,640
for the purpose for which it will be used.

191
00:16:26,640 --> 00:16:32,960
In reading, these would be strategies and methods examined in actual classrooms with

192
00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:35,920
real students.

193
00:16:35,920 --> 00:16:41,080
Now there is no singular scientific method.

194
00:16:41,080 --> 00:16:46,120
Rather, there are methods of science.

195
00:16:46,120 --> 00:16:52,520
There are a variety of methodologies used to examine the world in which we live.

196
00:16:52,520 --> 00:16:58,400
In reading instruction, there are a variety of methods used to ask and answer questions

197
00:16:58,400 --> 00:17:01,480
related to reading instruction.

198
00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:07,600
The questions you impact, impact the methods you use.

199
00:17:07,600 --> 00:17:15,120
However, if you are limited to only a certain type of method, you could only ask certain

200
00:17:15,120 --> 00:17:21,000
types of questions that are answerable by that method.

201
00:17:21,000 --> 00:17:29,400
Hence the exclusive reliance on one type of research severely limits the types of questions

202
00:17:29,400 --> 00:17:36,400
asked and the data collected and how that data are interpreted.

203
00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:44,960
Now as the science of reading defines reading science, the only research method that should

204
00:17:44,960 --> 00:17:52,960
be used to identify effective reading instruction is controlled experimental research.

205
00:17:52,960 --> 00:17:58,800
This is where you have a control group and an experimental group.

206
00:17:58,800 --> 00:18:04,200
Everything is the same about the two groups except for the one treatment variable you

207
00:18:04,200 --> 00:18:06,800
wish to examine.

208
00:18:06,800 --> 00:18:11,800
And at the end of the experiment, if there is a measurable difference between the two

209
00:18:11,800 --> 00:18:18,800
groups and if that difference is statistically significant, then you can say with some degree

210
00:18:18,800 --> 00:18:25,920
of confidence that the treatment variable led to the difference.

211
00:18:25,920 --> 00:18:30,920
This is the only kind of research that can be used to determine what is effective according

212
00:18:30,920 --> 00:18:34,840
to the science of reading.

213
00:18:34,840 --> 00:18:41,680
Reading science is that which uses controlled experimental research in authentic learning

214
00:18:41,680 --> 00:18:50,580
environments to determine which methods, strategies, approaches, or pedagogy are effective for

215
00:18:50,580 --> 00:18:54,160
reading instruction.

216
00:18:54,160 --> 00:19:02,560
While I think this provides a very narrow view, I could live with it if these same science

217
00:19:02,560 --> 00:19:08,840
principles were correctly and consistently applied.

218
00:19:08,840 --> 00:19:11,280
But they're not.

219
00:19:11,280 --> 00:19:17,920
There is a certain amount of ignorance related to reading, reading research, science, and

220
00:19:17,920 --> 00:19:20,360
reading science.

221
00:19:20,360 --> 00:19:26,440
This is mixed with a dangerous combination of ideology and I thinkisms.

222
00:19:26,440 --> 00:19:32,960
So you have the three eyes, ignorance, ideology, and I thinkisms.

223
00:19:32,960 --> 00:19:39,040
And where these three overlap, you have clownery.

224
00:19:39,040 --> 00:19:46,280
So we are left to conclude that the science of reading is understood and promoted by some

225
00:19:46,280 --> 00:19:50,660
here in Minnesota is clownery.

226
00:19:50,660 --> 00:19:52,440
This has been the Reading Instruction Show.

227
00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:58,600
I'm your host as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.