Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / Defining the Science of Reading

Transcript

Defining the Science of Reading · The Reading Instruction Show

• 0:00
  This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
• 0:02
  host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Let us see if we can
• 0:06
  learn a little something today. This is an excerpt
• 0:10
  from my book, Understanding the Science of Reading,
• 0:13
  Context Matters. Now we are looking at defining
• 0:17
  our terms. When somebody asks you, what's the
• 0:22
  science of reading? What do you say? Is it a
• 0:27
  process? Is it a set of strategies? An approach
• 0:31
  or method? A reading program? A group or organization?
• 0:36
  In this podcast, I'm going to attempt to define
• 0:40
  the science of reading. And notice, in my writing,
• 0:45
  I use capital letters. This enables us to differentiate
• 0:49
  between a science of reading, and it's one of
• 0:52
  several sciences, and the, quote, science of
• 0:56
  reading as a proper noun or title. Now, Louisa
• 1:01
  Moats in 2019 defined the science of reading
• 1:06
  as an emerging consensus. IT, the science of
• 1:10
  reading, is the emerging consensus for many related
• 1:13
  disciplines based on literally thousands of studies
• 1:17
  supported by hundreds of millions of research
• 1:21
  dollars conducted across the world in many languages.
• 1:27
  Pretty pretty words. Who could argue with such
• 1:32
  an important sounding sentence? But what exactly
• 1:38
  does she mean here? Let's do a bit of unpackering.
• 1:43
  Consensus. Okay, consensus is a general agreement
• 1:48
  about things. Within any field or discipline,
• 1:52
  there are always a variety of consensus. on all
• 1:56
  sorts of things. The field of reading instruction
• 1:59
  is no different. In fact, there are emerging,
• 2:04
  non -emerging, and receding consensuses on a
• 2:07
  whole bunch of things going on all the time.
• 2:11
  It's not a static monolithic field. Emerge. Emerge
• 2:18
  means to come forth or to arise from something.
• 2:22
  Why is it that just now a consensus is forming?
• 2:27
  The National Council of Teachers of English has
• 2:31
  been around since 1911. The International Literacy
• 2:36
  Association, used to be called the International
• 2:39
  Reading Association, has been around since 1956.
• 2:44
  And membership in these organizations over the
• 2:47
  years? have included hundreds of thousands of
• 2:51
  teachers, researchers, scholars, and educators.
• 2:56
  One would have thought a consensus would have
• 3:00
  emerged long before now, if there was indeed
• 3:03
  an emerging consensus. Related disciplines. Now
• 3:09
  the related disciplines are not identified here
• 3:12
  by Dr. Motz. but may include fields such as psychology,
• 3:17
  educational psychology, linguistics, cognitive
• 3:21
  psychology, and neuroscience. These other disciplines
• 3:26
  provide depth and dimension to our understanding
• 3:31
  of the reading process and reading instruction.
• 3:36
  However, just like reading instruction, these
• 3:41
  related disciplines are not static or monolithic.
• 3:45
  At any given time, one can select from a variety
• 3:50
  of consensus from a variety of disciplines to
• 3:53
  support a variety of consensus within reading
• 3:57
  instruction. Based on literally thousands of
• 4:03
  studies, Of all the, quote, literally thousands
• 4:07
  of studies, unquote, it's a mystery as to why
• 4:12
  so few of the literally thousands of studies
• 4:15
  are put forward to support science of reading
• 4:19
  mandates. It's a mystery as well as to why Orton
• 4:24
  Gillingham, Wilson Reading, Foundations, the
• 4:27
  American Reading Company, others, and other scripted
• 4:31
  for -profit products are given a free pass. They're
• 4:37
  accepted as research -based when, in fact, there's
• 4:41
  little, if any, peer -reviewed research to demonstrate
• 4:46
  the products A, ability to improve students'
• 4:50
  reading achievement, B, impact on teachers' ability
• 4:56
  to teach reading, and C, its greater effectiveness
• 5:01
  when compared to legitimate, meaning -based,
• 5:07
  balanced literacy approaches or methods. In these
• 5:11
  cases, we don't need literally thousands of studies,
• 5:15
  we need literally just a few. So the three big
• 5:19
  research questions are this. Does that product
• 5:23
  improve students' reading achievement? That product.
• 5:27
  Does that product improve teachers' ability to
• 5:30
  teach reading? And when compared to other similar
• 5:35
  things, is that product more effective? Those
• 5:39
  are the big three questions. Now, there is no
• 5:44
  doubt that each of the for -profit products I've
• 5:48
  listed have elements within them that can be
• 5:52
  supported by research. This is true of almost
• 5:56
  any commercial product. Having research -based
• 6:01
  components within a product does not make that
• 6:05
  product research -based. That's like saying,
• 6:10
  since 60 % of my body contains water, I am a
• 6:13
  lake. It just means that there is research to
• 6:17
  support certain parts of the product for certain
• 6:20
  students for certain things. And the last one,
• 6:25
  supported by hundreds of millions of research
• 6:27
  dollars, says Motz. Well, this is not something
• 6:31
  of which to be proud. This simply means there's
• 6:35
  a lot of money involved, and money always comes
• 6:39
  with a price. In the case of research related
• 6:45
  to reading instruction, money comes with the
• 6:48
  expectation of political or economic return.
• 6:53
  Let's see what Dr. Shanahan, Timothy Shanahan,
• 6:57
  according to Timothy Shanahan, the science of
• 7:00
  reading is a set of applied research studies.
• 7:04
  Applied research means it was conducted in a
• 7:08
  classroom. This differs from basic research,
• 7:13
  which is conducted apart from the context in
• 7:15
  which it is used or applied. Dr. Shanahan also
• 7:21
  said that, quote, the science of reading should
• 7:23
  refer to all empirical studies of any aspect
• 7:28
  of learning to read, write, and spell in any
• 7:32
  language. Now empirical research is research
• 7:36
  that's based on the observation and measurement
• 7:40
  of phenomena as directly experienced by the researcher.
• 7:47
  However, when we apply the US Department of Education
• 7:51
  standard to it, we see that the science of reading
• 7:56
  includes only a single type of empirical study
• 8:00
  or empirical research. Scientifically -based
• 8:05
  research in education is that which, according
• 8:08
  to the US Department of Education, is evaluated
• 8:12
  using experimental or quasi -experimental designs
• 8:16
  in which individuals, entities, programs, or
• 8:21
  activities are assigned to different conditions
• 8:24
  and with appropriate controls to evaluate the
• 8:27
  effects of the condition of interest, with a
• 8:30
  preference for random assignment experiment or
• 8:33
  other designs to the extent that these designs
• 8:36
  contain within -condition or across -condition
• 8:39
  controls. Okay, very good, good, we see this.
• 8:43
  But this is similar to the standard as well,
• 8:46
  employed by Dr. Shanahan and the National Reading
• 8:49
  Panel in 2000. The panel wrote on page 7, quote,
• 8:54
  to make a determination that any instructional
• 8:57
  practice could be or should be adopted widely
• 9:00
  to improve reading achievement requires that
• 9:04
  the belief, assumption, or claim supporting the
• 9:07
  practice be causally linked to a particular outcome.
• 9:12
  The highest standard of evidence for such a claim
• 9:15
  is the experimental study, in which it is shown
• 9:19
  that treatment can make such changes and affect
• 9:24
  such outcomes. Sometimes when it is not feasible
• 9:28
  to do a randomized experiment, a quasi -experimental
• 9:32
  study is conducted. This type of study provides
• 9:36
  a standard of evidence that, well not as high,
• 9:40
  is acceptable depending on the study design,
• 9:44
  unquote, National Reading Panel. Okay, so let's
• 9:48
  pull it all together then. What is the science
• 9:51
  reading? According to Motz and Shanahan, the
• 9:57
  National Reading Panel in the U .S. Department
• 10:00
  of Education, the science of reading seems to
• 10:04
  refer to a general consensus related to the strategies
• 10:08
  and practices that lead to improved reading outcomes.
• 10:14
  These strategies and practices have been determined
• 10:17
  to be effective using experimental or quasi -experimental
• 10:21
  research and conducted in authentic learning
• 10:24
  environments. Also, this research has established
• 10:29
  a causal link between strategies of practices
• 10:32
  and student outcomes, which in this case is reading
• 10:37
  achievement. Thus, the science of reading can
• 10:41
  be thought of as a process that uses these standards
• 10:47
  when making decisions related to reading instruction
• 10:51
  and policy. These standards are, and there's
• 10:54
  four, science of reading standards. One, strategies
• 10:59
  and practices lead to improved reading outcomes,
• 11:02
  as determined by research. Two, strategies and
• 11:05
  practices are supported by experimental or quasi
• 11:08
  -experimental research. Three, research establishes
• 11:13
  causal variables between strategies and practices
• 11:16
  and improved reading. And four, research has
• 11:22
  been conducted in an authentic learning environment,
• 11:26
  a classroom. However, the science of reading
• 11:31
  might best be described today as a self -defined
• 11:36
  movement that advocates these standards be used
• 11:41
  for making decisions related to reading policy
• 11:45
  and instruction. And I just said the four science
• 11:49
  of reading standards. Now, even though the science
• 11:54
  of reading standards just describes, represents
• 11:58
  a very narrow and distorted view of reading research,
• 12:04
  I could live with it if, dramatic pause, science
• 12:11
  of reading advocates would hold themselves to
• 12:14
  the same standards. That is, if the programs
• 12:18
  and policies they advocate were all based on
• 12:22
  the standards described. Four standards. Instead,
• 12:27
  we see the words research -based plastered on
• 12:31
  products, but very seldom do we see the relevant
• 12:35
  research. And a good example of this is a product
• 12:40
  like Orton Greenham. The Minnesota Deep. Department
• 12:46
  of Education identified this as one of three
• 12:50
  research -based programs that they allow, thank
• 12:54
  you Minnesota Department of Education, they allow
• 12:58
  schools to use with struggling readers. Now there
• 13:03
  may be parts of Orton -Gillingham that research
• 13:06
  has shown to be effective for some students in
• 13:09
  some settings for some purposes, but there is
• 13:13
  little, if any, legitimate peer -reviewed research
• 13:18
  asking the big three questions about Orton -Gillingham.
• 13:23
  The big three research questions. Number one,
• 13:27
  does it improve students' reading achievement?
• 13:31
  Does Orton -Gillingham improve students' reading
• 13:34
  achievement? Two, does Orton -Gillingham improve
• 13:37
  teachers' ability to teach reading? And three,
• 13:41
  when compared to similar things, is Orton -Gillingham
• 13:45
  more effective. Now if I've missed some research,
• 13:49
  please send it on to me and I'll make another
• 13:52
  podcast. This has been The Reading Instruction
• 13:55
  Show. I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.