Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / Conference Presentation: LETRS - Behind the Pretty Words

Transcript

Conference Presentation: LETRS - Behind the Pretty Words · The Reading Instruction Show

0:02
Greetings, I'm Andy Johnson. This presentation
0:05
is called Letters, Science of Reading Research
0:08
Standards and Baloney. So let's get to it. By
0:13
the way, you can find handouts and other stuff
0:16
if you go to my sub stack. go to Substack and
0:19
press in the reading instruction show. You'll
0:22
find a bunch of stuff related there. This is
0:24
a free Substack. I don't charge for subscriptions.
0:27
Everything there is free. I have videos and writing
0:29
and whatnot. I also have a lot of people ask
0:32
me about writing, how to teach writing. Writing
0:36
is one of the most under -taught skills in reading.
0:40
So I have lots of stuff there taken from my book,
0:44
Being and Becoming, Teachers of Writers. And
0:47
like the rest of America, 98 % of you anyway,
0:50
I do have a podcast. So let's get down to it.
0:55
Context. The context in which things are found
0:59
matter. Whether you're looking at words, understanding
1:02
sentences, making sense of data, research, phenomena,
1:07
understanding your students or the five core
1:10
skills, making sense of Orton Gillingham and
1:14
the science of reading, and in this case, evaluating
1:18
letters professional development. But first of
1:22
all, let's start with the illusion of crisis
1:25
context helps us understand that as well. There
1:30
is not a reading achievement crisis in the United
1:35
States of America, no matter what the media tells
1:39
you. National Assessment of Educational Progress,
1:44
NAEP, part of the US Department of Education,
1:48
puts out test scores every two years on reading
1:52
math, science, and other things. According to
1:55
Rinke and Ruby and Risco, there is no irrefutable
1:59
evidence that we are experiencing a national
2:02
literacy crisis. And science of things usually
2:07
require evidence to come to conclusions about
2:11
things. A crisis would look like that, or perhaps
2:17
like that. It would not look like that. These
2:24
are average reading scores for fourth graders
2:26
starting in 71 to 20, or second graders and fourth
2:32
graders 71 to 20. We'll look at some updated
2:35
ones in a bit. there has been no statistically
2:40
significant difference from 2013 to 2020. Yes,
2:48
there was the COVID dip and we have natural fluctuations
2:53
of scores as we would expect, but we're at the
2:56
same place as we were in three and about the
2:59
same place we were in nine. Okay, same with eighth
3:04
grade. No statistically significant difference
3:07
from 2012 to 2020, 2008, 2004. Now, to understand
3:18
NAEP, they decided to come up with three levels
3:23
or categories. They said, well, scores aren't
3:26
bad enough. We need to find a way to make them
3:29
bad so we can create this crisis. So they came
3:33
up with the categories basic, proficient, and
3:37
advanced. What did Ruby, Rinkeen, and Risco say?
3:41
Rinkeen, Ruby, and Risco. Scores used to define
3:45
these categories were arbitrarily set by a small
3:48
group of handpicked political appointed experts
3:52
against the recommendations of psychometricians
3:57
who had been contracted to advise the department.
4:04
Categories, levels, and contents. These are arbitrarily
4:11
or were arbitrarily defined. Group of people
4:14
got together and said, hmm, I think we'll call
4:17
that. Now let's put this in a bit of context.
4:20
Again, here is the national average. This is
4:23
for fourth graders. And they give us these percentages,
4:27
these percentile rankings, by the way. 10th,
4:30
25th, 75th, 90th, as a way to disaggregate or
4:35
pull out little bits of score so you can make
4:37
a case for almost anything. You can say, the
4:41
scores of poor readers are going down. Or if
4:46
they went up, you can say, the number of poor
4:49
readers is going up. Whatever. Here's the thing.
4:53
92. This was the national average, so they defined
5:00
basic as just below average and proficient as
5:06
slightly above average. Why is that problematic?
5:11
Because, wait for it, by definition at least
5:16
40 % of the population would be reading below
5:20
the basic level. Half would be reading below
5:25
average and only about 60%. Only 60 % would be
5:32
below the proficient level and only 40 % would
5:35
be above, at or above the proficiency level.
5:39
You see how they set that up to create the illusion.
5:43
Same with eighth graders. These are aspirational,
5:48
not mathematical average. just below average,
5:52
just above average. Walton said proficiency levels
6:00
should be interpreted with extreme caution, and
6:06
the National Center, their own website, provided
6:09
three reasons. These are aspirational, not mathematical,
6:13
these levels, they're being used on a trial basis,
6:16
so said their website. And further evidence is
6:21
needed to determine if these levels are reasonable,
6:24
valid, and informative. Yet there we go. And
6:29
we must differentiate between norm -referenced
6:31
and criterion -referenced tests. State tests
6:34
tend to be criterion -referenced. Group of people
6:38
got together and said, I think second graders
6:40
should know that, third graders this, fourth
6:43
graders this. So they established a criterion.
6:47
an arbitrarily defined criterion at each grade
6:51
level. They got together. But who decided the
6:55
content? Who decided what's basic, proficient,
7:00
et cetera? All right, let's look at letters and
7:05
the Mississippi miracle. It's a miracle. Notice
7:11
when states pass their legislation. Here's the
7:15
miracle happening in 2013. And you see all this
7:20
legislation passed. So in the next couple years,
7:25
we should expect to see miracles happening all
7:28
over the country. Absolutely. Now, Senator Chamberlain,
7:34
the state senator here in Minnesota, he got a
7:38
bill passed. But you know, Senator Chamberlain
7:41
and then the Reid Act sponsored by Heather Ellison
7:44
have been drinking the letters too late. The
7:48
lobbyists got to know they don't give them money,
7:52
but they lobby and they lobby and they lobby.
7:56
This is what Chamberlain said. Mississippi, is
8:03
outperforming Minnesota in reading game scores
8:06
due to their use of letters. Oh, how humiliating.
8:11
Mississippi is beating Minnesota. And he made
8:15
the causal, the causal link. He said it's due
8:20
to letters. Well, that's not really scientific
8:23
thinking. Randomly assigning causality, I think
8:27
is due to that. Okay, so his bill appropriated
8:32
30 million. Edelson's bill would later appropriate
8:35
100 million. All right, to make sure all teachers
8:39
are trained with letters. Outperforming Minnesota
8:43
in reading gain scores. Why is that a silly,
8:46
silly idea? You can't compare gain scores. Here's
8:53
Louisiana, Mississippi, Hawaii. And I've had
8:57
people that say, look at this. Alabama has higher
9:00
gain scores than Delaware. Therefore, we have
9:03
to do what Alabama is doing. Here's the thing
9:08
about gain scores. If you start low and you gain
9:12
a little, you're going to have a pretty high
9:15
gain score than if you start high and fluctuate
9:18
a little. This does not mean that this is doing
9:22
something magical. I went on the John Stossel
9:27
show. He interviewed me. It wasn't an interview.
9:29
He just wanted little bits to create a collage.
9:32
And he's been drinking the Kool -Aid as well.
9:34
He tried this gotcha thing. He had this graph
9:39
out here comparing gain scores and said, look
9:42
at Minnesota. They're way here. And look at Mississippi.
9:47
Look at those gain scores, he said. And I tried
9:50
to explain to him and I did. My explanation was
9:54
left on the cutting floor of that interview,
9:57
sadly. But here's the thing, Mississippi has
10:00
never scored above Minnesota. Fourth grade, Mississippi,
10:05
Minnesota, all right. Our Minnesota Department
10:10
of Education are Kool -Aid drinkers as well.
10:14
Mmm, tasty. This is what they put in their latest
10:20
missive. In accordance with the Read Act, all
10:24
phase one educators are required. That means
10:27
they must, they must have approved professional
10:32
development training and they approved it. How
10:36
many research articles do you think these Kool
10:38
-Aid drinkers have read in their lives? If I
10:43
were not to retire, and I'm going to retire in
10:46
three months just from university life, just
10:49
like the guy in clockwork orange whose eyes were
10:53
held open so he had to watch horrible things,
10:56
I would have to do mandatory letters training.
11:01
Here I am. It would be a re -education camp for
11:05
me. This is required of people. Someone would
11:08
be telling me about reading instruction. And
11:12
the Minnesota Department of Education has become
11:15
an infomercial for Lexia Learning. Look at all
11:19
this stuff. This could have been written by Lexia
11:22
Learning. Letters, rigorous professional development,
11:27
explicit systematic sequential instruction, foundational
11:31
skills. Really interesting. And look at the numbers.
11:36
It's got numbers. Hello, everybody. Numbers.
11:39
It must be good. And look. at the fancy graphs.
11:46
This is the Minnesota Department of Education
11:48
website, taking stuff directly from Voyager Sopris,
11:53
which is part of Cambrian, which is part of LexiAlerti.
11:57
Okay. Graphs do not make a thing more real. The
12:02
three questions we should ask of every program
12:06
policy or approach? Is there research to show
12:10
that it improves students' reading achievement,
12:13
that it improves teachers' ability to teach reading,
12:16
or that it's more effective when compared to
12:19
similar things? That research has not been forthcoming
12:23
for letters or for Orton Dillingham. Why are
12:28
they given a free pass? How can you be a science
12:33
of anything? if you ignore basic science. Hmm.
12:39
Public education should not be an ATM machine
12:42
for the profiteers. To illustrate the Mississippi
12:47
miracle, I want to tell you about my secret powers.
12:52
I can make the children in Mississippi taller.
12:56
Yes, I can. Here's how it happens. Step one,
13:01
flunk all the short kids, then Step two, when
13:04
tested in fourth grade, the average height of
13:07
fourth graders would be taller. The average height
13:09
of third graders would also be taller. And then
13:12
next year in the fourth grade, they'd be taller
13:14
because those short kids have grown a year. It's
13:17
a miracle. It's a Mississippi miracle. That's
13:23
what happened in Mississippi. The Mississippi
13:27
miracle. You had what was before 2013. all these
13:33
test takers, and then they would go to fourth
13:36
grade where the NAEP test was taken. And with
13:39
all the test takers, the results was 209 average.
13:44
But then the miracle came. The miracle. oh wonderful
13:50
upon wonderful the miracle and what they did
13:53
is they put a filter in there and they flunked
13:57
all the low testers in third grade so you only
14:01
had high and medium testers in fourth grade and
14:05
then the next year these low testers weren't
14:07
quite as low but again you are flunking low testers
14:10
so a whole lot of flunking going on and we can
14:14
see here's the start of the miracle and oh look
14:18
at this miracle a mirror and look at Mississippi
14:21
even snuck above the national average it's a
14:26
miracle it's a miracle look at the miracle yes
14:33
yes yes it's a Mississippi miracle okay little
14:39
context before you start celebrating too much
14:44
In four years, those same fourth graders then
14:49
went to eighth grade where they had to once again
14:52
take an NAEP test. And again, starting in 13,
14:59
they were still below the national average. And
15:03
we've got a little bump here, but in 24, they're
15:07
the same as they were in 13. Huh? Huh? The miracle
15:14
went away. It's not a miracle. Oh dear. Oh dear.
15:21
Let's look at letters and orthographic mapping.
15:27
And I've got seven new words I want to introduce
15:31
you to. So I'm going to expand your vocabulary.
15:37
Buzzwords. First, a buzzword is used to elicit
15:40
an emotional response versus accurately transmit
15:43
information. And academic buzzwords are used
15:47
in education to create the illusion of something
15:51
important. I know that probably destroys your
15:54
faith in scholars, but they sometimes do that.
15:57
Imagine that. Here are some lovely, lovely buzzwords.
16:03
Oh, pretty, pretty buzzwords. If you want to
16:07
have some fun, go to a reading league meeting
16:11
or conference. Give this list to people and say,
16:14
write down the definition of these. See how many
16:17
people can do it. See how many lists are the
16:21
same. See if there's any understanding, any similarity.
16:28
And here's the thing about these important sounding
16:31
buzzwords. They're used to describe what people
16:34
think is good. They're used to describe letters
16:36
in Orton Gillingham and this, that, and the other
16:38
thing. These letters can be used to identify
16:43
and describe balanced literacy and even, wait
16:47
for it, whole language. Yes, systematic, direct,
16:53
explicit instruction, whole language. but we're
16:57
looking at orthographic mapping. So let us turn
17:00
to Lexia to help us understand Lexia learning,
17:03
because as Lexia says, that's the connection.
17:07
And Lexia, by the way, if I haven't said it before,
17:10
they are the publishers of letters, professional
17:13
development. Orthographic mapping connections
17:17
leads to literacy success, okay? Well, this was
17:22
a term invented by Linnea Airy, 2014, and it
17:28
is a theory. A theory explains a set of facts.
17:35
You can't see orthographic mapping. Don't get
17:40
snuckered by big fancy brain words and images.
17:45
and things like orthographic mapping. It is a
17:48
theory. A theory explains a set of facts. Different
17:52
theories explain different facts differently.
17:56
Different theories are supported by research.
17:59
Now, orthographic has to do with symbols representing
18:02
sounds and arrangements of letters. We have an
18:06
orthographic language. Each sound, each phoneme
18:11
is represented by a letter, a graph name. as
18:15
opposed to a logo or logographic. Here, a symbol
18:20
represents something. These aren't letter sounds.
18:23
These are symbols. Mapping is how things are
18:29
organized and stored in long -term memory. It's
18:34
how the neurons are connected. If you could see
18:37
a brain image, neural pathways and neural networks,
18:41
and here's how things are connected in your brain.
18:44
as they become activated. Long -term memory is
18:48
kind of like a storage locker. Things are stored
18:51
there and they're organized with related things
18:55
connected to or stored by other related things
18:58
so that we can find them when we go back and
19:01
memory and look for something. Things are not
19:04
stored higgily -piggily like that. It would be
19:07
hard to remember anything if things were just
19:09
put in there haphazardly. Things are organized
19:15
in our brain according to meaning. Related things
19:19
are stored close. When something becomes activated,
19:24
you think about a swan, all those related things,
19:28
electrical signals, go to these related things
19:31
and get activated. That's how long -term memory
19:35
works. Orthographic facilitation. is seeing the
19:41
spelling of a word while learning its meaning
19:44
and sound. Now, this is kind of a, that's one
19:49
of those buzzwords, you know? You see the spelling
19:53
while you're learning the definition, what it
19:57
means and what it sounds like. What it sounds
20:01
like, okay, you see the word dinosaur and you
20:05
see sound symbols. So of course you're gonna
20:09
remember the sound better and the meaning better.
20:13
You see the morphological units, but remembering
20:18
it and knowing the sound of it is different from
20:22
understanding the meaning of the word. Children
20:27
learn three to 5 ,000 words a year. Very few
20:31
of them do they see the spelling of. It's a goofy
20:35
idea. It's a theoretical idea, okay? Just like
20:40
orthographic mapping, the process of storing
20:43
a word permanently in memory for instant retrieval.
20:47
Well, like many things, this is kind of true.
20:49
There's some things that are true about it, all
20:52
right? See a printed word, brain uses letter
20:55
-sound relationship, okay? According to Erie,
21:00
It occurs when in the course of reading specific
21:03
words, readers form connections between written
21:06
unit, either single graphemes or larger spelling
21:09
patterns, and spoken units, either phonemes,
21:12
syllamines, or morphemes. Okay, I don't know
21:16
what the hell she's talking about there. I don't
21:19
know what she's talking about. A lot of words
21:21
here, a lot of buzzwords. Connections between
21:24
written and spoken units. Connections retained
21:27
in memory. Spelling of words enter memory. Spelling
21:31
of words influence vocabulary. What does any
21:36
of this mean? And I'm a poor speller, but I can
21:39
actually have a pretty big vocabulary and could
21:42
read a whole bunch of words. I don't see that
21:45
connection here, but that's just me. But according
21:49
to Erie, there's this special word memory in
21:53
long -term memory. where you map and connect
21:56
letters to sounds, letters to sounds to meanings
21:59
to spelling, and these all impact word recognition,
22:03
ability to spell, and vocabulary. It's very confusing,
22:08
and simply having graphics and charts and organizers
22:12
like this doesn't make a silly thing less silly.
22:16
It just means you have a graphic. Orthographic
22:21
mapping. It explains how children learn to read
22:25
words not reading by sight to spell words from
22:28
memory and to acquire vocabulary from print well
22:30
no it doesn't really explain that at all doesn't
22:35
explain that at all and i've got a whole bunch
22:39
of research citations you can find it on my sub
22:42
stack i devoted a whole chapter to this in my
22:45
book uh that's coming out this summer a theory
22:50
it's a theory a theory that is based on a misinterpretation
22:55
and over interpretation of research data. If
23:00
knowledge was stored in long -term memory in
23:03
the form of words, orthographic mapping might
23:06
make sense, but knowledge is stored in the form
23:11
of associative networks, not words. Let me explain
23:17
that a bit. Orthographic mapping says words are
23:22
memorized and stored in long -term based on letter
23:26
patterns. While semantic mapping, which we call
23:29
memory, says concepts are encoded and organized
23:33
in long -term memory based on meaning. Things
23:36
that are related are stored closer together.
23:43
Things are stored and connected with related
23:46
things. I'll be explaining. Semantic mapping
23:50
is based on association. We call it memory. Orthographic
23:54
may be a thing. There may be some of that letter
23:57
connection. But semantic mapping is a much more
24:01
powerful thing. I'll demonstrate that. If we
24:06
just encountered words floating in space without
24:09
context, orthographic mapping would make sense.
24:14
But words are always encountered in the context
24:17
of a sentence, a sign, or a symbol, or a product,
24:22
not a symbol. So we don't and it doesn't. For
24:29
example, when you see or hear the word cat, what
24:34
comes to mind? Think about it, okay? What doesn't
24:40
come to mind is related letters. You don't say,
24:43
oh, all the words that start with a C or have
24:46
an at phonogram or, you know, it's not letter
24:51
patterns that come to mind. Orthographic mapping
24:55
based on letter patterns. No. When you see and
24:59
hear the word cat, do you associate it with other
25:02
short A words? No. You see the word cat and you
25:07
associate it with cat things. Mapping or memory
25:10
is based on meanings and associations, not letter
25:15
patterns. Semantic mapping may indeed be a thing,
25:19
it's a very weak thing, orthographic mapping,
25:23
but semantic mapping is a much more powerful
25:27
thing. Words stored in long -term memory. Networks
25:31
are connected to other words with semantic relationships.
25:40
The strongest level of word representation in
25:43
long -term memory is not letter patterns, phonological
25:48
or lexical, but meaning, conceptual. And again,
25:53
orthographic mapping may be a thing. but semantic
25:56
mapping or memory is much more of a thing. Our
26:04
neural networks, our brain, it's like three -dimensional
26:09
interconnected harp strings. They vibrate and
26:13
activate related things. Again, If I pluck a
26:18
string there, it's gonna vibrate and make something
26:21
that it's connected to vibrate just like a harp
26:24
string. So I'm plucking the word cat and my brain
26:28
is already activating cat -like things. That
26:32
explains why there's 10 times more information
26:35
flowing down during the act of reading than flowing
26:38
up from the thalamus. All these things have already
26:41
been activated and we're thinking about cat things
26:45
even before we see the next cat words. Vibrating
26:51
heart, connected neurons are activated. That
26:54
enables us to make these micro predictions, the
26:58
guessing game that Goodman called. And I would
27:01
encourage you to, if you say whole language has
27:04
been rejected, for gosh darn sakes, read his
27:09
article before you reject him. You know, then
27:11
tell me exactly what you disagree with. What
27:14
it says, It describes that activation. You're
27:18
reading a book about cats, and as soon as you
27:20
see the word cat, your brain becomes activated.
27:23
These connected neurons are activated, related
27:27
things. So you need to use less letter clues.
27:33
Orthographic mapping. What is it? Well, I call
27:37
a pile of baloney. What about the gold standard
27:45
research? Okay, very good. Well, U .S. Department
27:49
of Education, they defined research as using
27:53
experimental or quasi -experimental design with
27:56
appropriate controls, random assignment, all
28:00
right, and have to be, if it's the gold standard
28:02
and that's what needs to be used, science of
28:05
reading and all, has to be done in an actual
28:08
classroom. It can't be basic. It must be applied
28:11
research. OK. Basic science of reading definition
28:16
using strategies and practice shown to be effective
28:20
using controlled experimental or quasi -experimental
28:24
research and conducted in an actual setting.
28:28
So decisions about programs, policies, and such
28:33
are all based on these strategies and practices.
28:38
Okay. And I would be okay with that. I think
28:40
that's a limited view, but if it were consistently
28:45
applied, but it's not, it's not consistently
28:48
applied. If science of reading advocates would
28:54
hold themselves to the same standards, I could
28:58
live with it. Mandated programs, curriculum,
29:01
and policies, but things like letters and Orton
29:04
Gillingham, there's no No applied research showing
29:11
that it enhances reading or is more effective
29:14
than something else. Research is not simply collecting
29:19
data and saying stuff. Some of Louisa Moat, she
29:23
just collects data. She gives a survey. You can't
29:26
find a research question. And then she says stuff.
29:29
That's not research. Research is not research
29:34
unless and until it has been subjected to blind
29:38
peer review. But even with the gold standard,
29:42
there is trouble with some of this stuff. So
29:44
let's take a look at the evidence for letters.
29:49
Is letters professional development evidence
29:52
-based? Is it research -based? These are the
29:56
wrong questions to ask. Instead, Is there strong
30:03
research to support to address these questions?
30:07
Does it improve reading achievement? Has it been
30:11
shown to improve teachers' ability to teach?
30:13
Has it been shown to be more effective than other
30:16
forms of professional development? And if there's
30:19
these research studies out there, they're sure
30:22
kept hidden. In examining letters, I was looking
30:26
for controlled experimental quasi -experimental
30:30
research. that's the gold standards, and a causal
30:34
link between letters and teachers' ability to
30:37
teach reading and teach it effectively and that
30:40
comparison. That is the gold standard. I don't
30:44
need thousands, I just need one or two. Now here's
30:48
the thing. Dr. Moats and her minions would have
30:52
us believe that if teachers had just the right
30:55
kind of knowledge, her kind of knowledge, then
31:00
they could teach reading effectively, and all
31:02
those pesky reading problems would go away. That's
31:05
not really very scientific thinking. Well, research
31:10
has been put forth to support those propositions
31:14
that she has the right kind of knowledge. This
31:17
is based on, I think, results. What kind of knowledge
31:22
is important? Dr. Moats claims that her kind
31:25
of knowledge is the right kind of knowledge,
31:28
and you must have her knowledge. This is the
31:33
irrefutable logic of Dr. Moats. A, letters professional
31:37
development, equals B, more effective teaching.
31:42
Okay, follow the logic. B, more effective teaching,
31:47
equals C, higher levels of reading achievement.
31:50
Okay, therefore, A equals C. Letters equals higher
31:57
levels of reading achievement. Okay. Also, A,
32:02
letters equals D, solution to all problems. Okay.
32:06
Also, A is greater than E, all other forms of
32:10
professional development for reading. And F,
32:14
all teacher preparation programs is less than
32:18
A, letters professional development. Hmm. It's
32:22
logical, irrefutable, but there's no research
32:26
evidence. I'm going to throw a monkey wrench
32:29
in the fly ointment. No causal link from A to
32:33
B, C, D, or E. No comparative research showing
32:36
A is greater than E or F is less than A. And
32:41
we are operating in a scientific environment,
32:45
are we? Is the knowledge of Louisa Moats better
32:49
than the knowledge of others? Say Richard Ellington,
32:53
Mari Clay, Denny Taylor, the owner's manual for
32:58
an Evan Rood outboard engine. Is it better than
33:02
that? Please show me some research. And again,
33:08
has research shown that her special knowledge
33:12
improves reading achievement, teaching ability,
33:15
and is better than some other special knowledge?
33:21
Well, let's take a look at some of the primary
33:25
research conducted by Dr. Modes, who is the author
33:28
of letters. And again, we're looking for a causal
33:32
variable linking letters and teachers' ability
33:35
to teach, students' ability to read, and as comparing
33:41
it to something else. Basic research standards.
33:49
All right, 1994, this research study. This is
33:53
interesting. Now, yeah, you're saying 1994. Well,
33:57
this is cited in her white paper and her white
34:01
paper is cited all over the place. It's found
34:04
on the Lexia Letters website. And this was used
34:08
to support two propositions. First, that teachers
34:12
aren't being adequately trained to teach reading.
34:16
We don't train, by the way, we educate. that
34:19
they need more training in phoneme awareness
34:21
and phonics, and they do not have fully developed
34:24
phonemic awareness or an understanding of the
34:27
way words are spelled. Okay, let's see if her
34:31
research meets the science of reading goal standards
34:34
that must be used. She was teaching graduate
34:37
courses, and she had a self -selected population.
34:42
Not a random, but self -selected. of 89 students
34:46
who are taking an elective course called reading,
34:49
spelling, and phonology. So these students were
34:53
taking a course. There was an equal distribution,
34:57
meaning that some were speech language pathologists,
35:01
some teaching assistants, some graduate assistants,
35:04
and so, you know, we don't know how many of each,
35:09
how many were actual classroom teachers. We don't.
35:12
But she gave a survey, a test on what she thought
35:17
was important for teaching reading. Students
35:21
signed up for her class to learn the very things
35:25
that she thought was important, the very things
35:27
that were on the survey. And of course they didn't
35:31
know it, but she's saying these things, content
35:33
of the survey, are important for being able to
35:38
teach reading. Interesting. This is based on
35:43
an I think -ism. There's nothing to support that
35:47
her knowledge is necessary or sufficient for
35:51
teaching, reading. There's no research question.
35:53
She just gave a survey on a bunch of stuff she
35:57
thought was important. And then she said a bunch
36:00
of stuff about her survey afterwards. If you
36:05
look at the actual article and look for the research
36:08
question, you'll see there isn't one. She just
36:11
gave a survey and said a bunch of stuff. Yet
36:13
this study is often used to generalize about
36:16
teacher's knowledge and teacher education programs.
36:20
This was published in the Annals of Dyslexia,
36:22
which makes you question that. but the Annals
36:25
of Dyslexia and the International Dyslexia Association,
36:29
they came originally from the Orton -Gillingham
36:33
International Dyslexia Association, and the Bulletin
36:36
of the Orton Society is what it was called. So
36:40
I wonder, hmm, you think they're gonna look favorably
36:44
on Orton -Gillingham stuff? Probably so. A second
36:48
study, Motz and Forman. Okay, measuring teachers'
36:53
content knowledge of language and reading. A
36:56
three -year study, 50 kindergarten first graders
36:59
given a survey, 41 second and third survey, 103
37:04
third and fourth survey, and not surprisingly,
37:08
she found surprising gaps in teachers' insights
37:12
about learning to read, meaning they did not
37:15
know the things that she wanted them to know
37:18
or she thought she should know. She's built her
37:22
career on I thinkisms. I think teachers should
37:25
know this. And some of my colleagues have taken
37:28
letters training and said there's interesting
37:30
stuff there, but there's interesting stuff on
37:34
the history channel that does not mean that it
37:37
should be required for reading teachers. Her
37:41
conclusions were teachers who attended professional
37:45
development courses regularly scored higher on
37:49
the knowledge survey than those with low or no
37:53
attendance. That was the data. And she's misinterpreting
37:58
her own data to say that there are surprising
38:01
gaps and teachers don't know these things. And
38:04
it does not meet the science of reading research
38:08
standards. Here's her white paper, 2021. I examine
38:16
and evaluated every single stinking research
38:20
study used by her in her 10 points. And there's
38:26
a reason why this is a white paper and not an
38:28
article, because it would never pass muster.
38:33
In every instance, the research she cited did
38:37
not support the proposition for which it was
38:40
cited. None of the 10 statements are supported
38:42
by the research studies cited. And after reading
38:47
this white paper, people ask me that you have
38:49
a very negative view of letters. Have you ever
38:52
taken letters training? After reading that white
38:55
paper, why would anyone spend 10 minutes or 10
39:00
cents on anything related to letters? That's
39:04
what I ask, all right? Let's just take a look.
39:07
Prior coursework has been insufficient to prepare
39:10
teachers for effective literacy instruction.
39:12
She did not support this, what she cited did
39:15
not. And here's the thing, two of her sources
39:18
are invalid. National Council for Teachers of
39:23
Quality, that's not peer review, that is not
39:27
an academic journal. This is an interesting one,
39:34
Josie Bengtson Graham. Again, this is used to
39:37
support the assertion that pre -service teachers
39:40
aren't being adequately taught, aren't being
39:43
adequately prepared. They examine textbooks,
39:46
what was in a textbook, and did it have what
39:49
they thought was important? Did they have enough
39:52
of the five core? All right? What's in a textbook
39:56
does not relate to what's in a course. It's just
40:01
goofy. It is absolutely goofy. Teachers matter
40:06
more than programs. Well, yes, I think we all
40:10
agree with that. Okay. Teachers need compatible
40:15
coaching and peer support. Well, okay. Teaching
40:19
is rocket science. Again, not valid sources,
40:26
but it didn't support those. Language is the
40:30
missing foundation. Again, these are not valid
40:35
sources and these did not at all support the
40:39
propositions for which they were cited. Phonemic
40:43
awareness and phonics are major components for
40:45
which teachers need more training. Again, not
40:48
a valid source. Again, none of these supported
40:53
the propositions. None of them. Look it up yourself.
40:58
Teachers' estimates of their own knowledge often
41:01
diverge from objective evidence. Okay. Acquiring
41:07
deep knowledge of reading instruction takes time.
41:09
Okay, yeah, we agree with that. Okay, but not
41:14
valid sources. When teachers know more, students
41:17
learn more. Well, we all agree with that, but
41:20
it's not... what you think they should know.
41:23
Teacher knowledge has always been essential.
41:26
That's never been in question. That's why we
41:29
need legitimate professional development, not
41:33
for profit, stuff like letters. That's not legitimate
41:37
professional development. Effective teachers
41:41
are more content and will love their jobs. Well,
41:43
that's not a valid source, but I agree with that.
41:47
I mean, duh, okay. So my question after reading
41:51
her white paper, does Dr. Motz not know better
41:55
or does she know better and does this anyway?
41:59
Both are not very, both are scary propositions
42:03
to consider. Letters has efficacy research. Again,
42:11
efficacy research. You say, oh, there must be
42:13
research there. This is on the Lexia letters.
42:17
Okay. Let's see if we can find, let's take a
42:23
look. I examined each of the 18 research studies
42:26
that Lexia said constitutes the evidence base
42:29
for letters. Letters grouped them into three
42:33
categories. Peer -reviewed publications, there
42:36
was only two of those. Third -party evaluations,
42:39
there were four of those, and that's not research.
42:43
Unpublished masters or doctoral dissertation,
42:46
that's not research. There's a reason why they're
42:49
unpublished. Only two of the 18 were published
42:54
in peer review. And we'll look at just both of
42:57
them. These are the two. The first one, you know,
43:02
here's the thing. You can see a difference in
43:04
how letters described it in their efficacy report
43:07
and the actual abstract. Letters use the term,
43:12
Lexia used the term letters five times in their
43:15
description. Well, the authors used it zero times.
43:20
The study wasn't about letters at all. The research
43:24
had nothing to do with letters. But you can see
43:27
Lexia using letters, letters, letters all the
43:30
time. And the actual abstract had nothing to
43:35
do with letters. They're comparing professional
43:38
development coaches to no professional development
43:41
coaches. The same with this study. the Lexia
43:47
description mentioned letters, the actual abstract
43:52
does not. It's because the study looked at reading
43:56
programs with explicit instruction and compared
44:01
children with learning disabilities and speech
44:03
disabilities to those without. Okay, letters,
44:10
Lexia description, letters training, okay. But
44:13
at the end, this analysis does not compare the
44:16
reading first program to comparison condition,
44:19
so causal conclusions about the intervention.
44:22
Okay, what the hell? What the hell? Abstract?
44:27
I see nothing related to letters there. None
44:31
of these would pass the science of reading research
44:35
standards muster. Third -party evaluations. These
44:40
are not research. There's no blind peer review.
44:46
None of them. None of them make a causal link
44:48
between letters and teacher's ability to teach
44:51
reading. None of them compare letters to other
44:54
forms of professional development. And then unpublished
45:01
theses and dissertations from small universities.
45:05
These are unpublished for a reason. Often committee
45:08
members had no literacy background in departments
45:11
outside of education. EDD is not a research degree.
45:14
There's no blind peer review. And again, Lexia's
45:19
description of these theses and dissertations
45:22
differ from the abstract with many methodological
45:27
concerns. Conclusions. There's no causal research
45:38
that has been shown linking letters with teacher
45:41
effectiveness or student reading achievement,
45:45
comparing letters professional development with
45:48
other forms of professional development, comparing
45:51
letters knowledge with any other types of knowledge.
45:55
Dr. Moats either doesn't know better or she knows
45:58
better and does it anyway. Always question the
46:02
premise of science of reading claims and letters.
46:05
Always look to see what's measured and how. All
46:12
right. Hope you have had a wonderful learning
46:16
experience. I will stop right here.