Topic: Maren Aukerman, a research professor focused on literacy education and democratic citizenship, summarizes the problems with the reporting around “the science of reading”:
Lack of balance in reporting
Sensationalistic “Straw Man” arguments
A myopic lens fetishizing phonics instruction
Logical fallacies
She offers recommendations for taking a critical stance when consuming content from journalists including Dana Goldstein1 and Emily Hanford2.
Takeaway: Aukerman notes that while respected professional journals such as Phi Delta Kappan and Reading Research Quarterly offer an expansive and research-based view of SoR, national media like The New York Times continue to drive a simplistic, “good-vs-bad” narrative of how to learn to read.
“[M]edia rhetoric continues to hype the supposed dichotomy. In doing so, articles like Goldstein’s conjure a protagonist (‘the science of reading’) and an enemy (‘balanced literacy’) characterized as anti-phonics and anti-science.”
In other words, Aukerman finds that Hanford, Goldstein, etc. are selling a story.
1. I believe it is true that Goldstein, Hanford, et al are selling a story. Why? Because when we dig into the history of this debate, what they are doing is painting a limited portrait of what it means to become a reader. For educators who remember Reading First 20 years ago, this is old wine in new bottles. It's not that they are 100% wrong, but that they leave so much out of the real story in becoming a reader.
2. I am going to lead by reading (not listening to!) Hanford's Sold a Story series. I will share my response to this content for others to consider. What I believe is different today is the medium in which this debate is presented. For example, why are people encouraged to listen to the series vs. reading the transcripts? It is the voices, the music, the narrative create an emotional response to the information presented. I don't think this leads to a rationale response to the content.
I am excited to be part of this discussion. I am currently reading Teaching Readers and LOVE it. My initial response to all discussions around SoR is - you can not science an individual child's brain.
Absolutely. Right on the money. The entire enterprise of LETRs-centric instruction sits on a slippery logical fallacy, a cousin of the Straw Man: Equivocation (using the same word in two or more contradictory senses when one use is more convenient). Can you guess the word--that shameful behavior according to SoR? Starts with an S... 🧪... yes, it’s science.
RRQ means Scientific in the sense of reasoned and curated debate on important questions or problems in a scholarly community with a full complementary portfolio of research methods to ground theoretical arguments in reliable, valid, and trustworthy evidence. This sort of science isn’t recognized in the SoR community unless it “aligns” with the ideology. SoR wants to transfer the respect and prestige of serious scientists studying reading to their own ideological framework which views anything published before 1986 as suspect.
The SoR ideology is risky as a pillar of public education. It’s made of balsa wood. I’ve never before felt threatened by the phonological loop. But SoR mandates that kids should not read uncontrolled language in text until they can decode multi syllable words automatically with 100% accuracy. What?????
I always appreciate your perspective, Terry. Your comparison between the different resources we use to make informed decisions about instructional practices is important to understand.
Agreed, especially about the drama of the podcast. The “science” is not settled, and teachers should use all methods necessary to reach their students. Thank you for this.
Sorry you cannot join us on Tuesday (re: Twitter reply). If you decide to become a full subscriber, let's chat about a time that can work better for everyone, such as an hour later.
Welcome Gina! Yes, I will record the conversations, uploading the audio for the podcast for all and the video for full subscribers. I appreciate the question.
I am committed to holding off at least a day to comment, to give other readers first crack at responding.
Thinking about the text... (and you can see my notes in the margins here: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s55/sh/24ee7424-5b57-842e-ac42-3036e05aaba8/a1da059de7bb81b100dc6986300662c4):
1. I believe it is true that Goldstein, Hanford, et al are selling a story. Why? Because when we dig into the history of this debate, what they are doing is painting a limited portrait of what it means to become a reader. For educators who remember Reading First 20 years ago, this is old wine in new bottles. It's not that they are 100% wrong, but that they leave so much out of the real story in becoming a reader.
2. I am going to lead by reading (not listening to!) Hanford's Sold a Story series. I will share my response to this content for others to consider. What I believe is different today is the medium in which this debate is presented. For example, why are people encouraged to listen to the series vs. reading the transcripts? It is the voices, the music, the narrative create an emotional response to the information presented. I don't think this leads to a rationale response to the content.
"The medium is the message." - Marshall McLuhan
I am excited to be part of this discussion. I am currently reading Teaching Readers and LOVE it. My initial response to all discussions around SoR is - you can not science an individual child's brain.
Absolutely. Right on the money. The entire enterprise of LETRs-centric instruction sits on a slippery logical fallacy, a cousin of the Straw Man: Equivocation (using the same word in two or more contradictory senses when one use is more convenient). Can you guess the word--that shameful behavior according to SoR? Starts with an S... 🧪... yes, it’s science.
RRQ means Scientific in the sense of reasoned and curated debate on important questions or problems in a scholarly community with a full complementary portfolio of research methods to ground theoretical arguments in reliable, valid, and trustworthy evidence. This sort of science isn’t recognized in the SoR community unless it “aligns” with the ideology. SoR wants to transfer the respect and prestige of serious scientists studying reading to their own ideological framework which views anything published before 1986 as suspect.
The SoR ideology is risky as a pillar of public education. It’s made of balsa wood. I’ve never before felt threatened by the phonological loop. But SoR mandates that kids should not read uncontrolled language in text until they can decode multi syllable words automatically with 100% accuracy. What?????
I always appreciate your perspective, Terry. Your comparison between the different resources we use to make informed decisions about instructional practices is important to understand.
Agreed, especially about the drama of the podcast. The “science” is not settled, and teachers should use all methods necessary to reach their students. Thank you for this.
Thank you for commenting Gina.
Sorry you cannot join us on Tuesday (re: Twitter reply). If you decide to become a full subscriber, let's chat about a time that can work better for everyone, such as an hour later.
Thank you!
Just joined! 🙂 Is there a way that webinars might be recorded for us west coast teachers?
Welcome Gina! Yes, I will record the conversations, uploading the audio for the podcast for all and the video for full subscribers. I appreciate the question.
Thanks so much!