The Science is Anything But Settled

#2 of 5 things school leaders need to know about the science of reading

Photo by Kristin Snippe on Unsplash

In this second of five posts around the science of reading, we:

• examine a common response when we resist scripted literacy instruction,

• compare what is considered “scientific” and not within the S.o.R. movement, and

• explore strategies for better professional dialogue around literacy instruction.

The goal is not to persuade; it is to improve our understanding as literacy leaders.

---

I recently posted on social media about the close-minded approach to implementing a literacy curriculum program.

A literacy curriculum program can either be:

• A script that teachers cannot deviate from, or

• A resource that supports responsive instruction.

The difference is whether leaders support teachers and trust them as professionals.

While the post was well-received , speaking out publicly against a rigid approach that is sometimes employed with literacy curricula also garners some critical feedback.

For example, an educational consultant responded that they like to “fill them (teachers) with knowledge and give them a supportive script. They need it and enjoy it.”

After resisting the impulse to respond with a summary of research¹ that raise concerns about Orton-Gillingham as a reading intervention (this person apparently trains teachers in this approach), I wondered why they might hold these beliefs.

• Do they not trust teachers to support students in reading and as readers?

• Why do they hold on to practices that appear to lack evidence of effectiveness?

• What would it take to persuade them to reconsider their positions?

And right after, I realized that I wasn’t wondering anything as I much as I was making a judgment about someone that I didn’t know very well.

What counts as science and trapped by simple stories

One thing I’ve learned about the science of reading movement: it is exclusive.

And by exclusive, I mean that those who are committed to it have a shared understanding of evidence-based practices that supports effective reading instruction.

• Phonological awareness

• Phonics and word recognition

• Fluency

• Vocabulary and oral language comprehension

• Text comprehension²

Conversely, the following practices, also rich with research supporting their effectiveness for teaching readers, are almost never included as part of the S.o.R. movement:

• Offering voice and choice in what to read (motivation and engagement)

• Goal-setting and documenting students’ accomplishments (self-efficacy)

• Reflection routines to support independent reading (metacognition, mindfulness)

• Surveys + discussion for building reader identities (attributions, growth mindset)

• Critical reading of and thinking around relevant texts (epistemic beliefs)³

This discrepancy bears asking:

Why are the former practices deemed more “scientific” than the latter?

As I shared in the first post in this series, I believe that the science of reading draws in people who are susceptible to simple stories about reading instruction. The complexity of teaching readers, as you can see above, is formidable. It’s easier to plan for and project out the skills and strategies needed to teach reading…like a script.

Jennifer Garvey Berger has studied this phenomenon. Summarized in her book Unlocking Leadership Mindtraps: How to Thrive in Complexity, she finds that a common trap people fall into are simple stories. (This five minute video is a nice introduction.)

How does this happen? As Berger notes in the text:

"To create our simple stories, we pick and choose the data we remember, and we add in little bits of data if it makes for a better case." (p. 30)

This may be why, when someone is deeply committed to the S.o.R. movement, they cannot consider or even see evidence that counters their currently-held beliefs about “what works” for reading instruction. Nor can they seriously consider research that supports additional factors of how students grow as readers. The data doesn’t fit within the simple story they have created about effective literacy instruction.

Question: If someone struggles to consider additional information, how can we find a common understanding for effectively teaching readers?

Berger offers three suggestions for engaging in conversation around this topic.

1. Accept that we are all susceptible to mindtraps.

For example, of the five mindtraps Berger describes, I have learned that I can be trapped by rightness. I know this because whenever I have found myself in unhealthy disagreements, it usually stems from treating professional conversations as a debate instead of a dialogue. I wanted to win instead of learn. (I also think this is one reason I wrote Leading Like a C.O.A.C.H.; it was the book I needed.)

To accept that we are all susceptible to mindtraps is to humble ourselves and to be mindful of how we might be wrong.

2. Presume everyone has good intentions.

If we take a step back from the S.o.R. debate, we can see that just about everyone involved in this conversation wants one thing: for students to be successful readers.

With this mindset, I can take a more empathetic attitude toward others who currently hold a reading instruction philosophy that conflicts with my own. Not that I agree with them. What I can do is to appreciate their positive intentions. (Berger offers a key question to ask yourself in these situations: “How is this person a hero?”)

3. Carry additional stories to understand people’s positions.

For example, if I were to engage in a conversation with the educator mentioned previously (“I like to fill teachers with knowledge and give them a supportive script. They need it and enjoy it.”), I might ask them:

1. What knowledge do the teachers seem to enjoy the most? How do you know?

2. What specific benefits have you observed from using the script that you provide?

3. Knowing that not every student responds well to any singular approach to reading instruction, what other approaches have you found to be effective?

These questions create additional stories beyond my initial judgments and convey:

• Recognition of their credibility in working in actual classrooms with teachers.

• Respect for their capacity to document evidence supporting their practice.

• The potential I believe they have in flexible thinking and social imagination.

Will this person expand in their understanding of the science of reading?

Maybe, maybe not. But I have given them the benefit of the doubt. At the very least, as a leader I have modeled openness about the evolving nature of literacy instruction, held a trust-building coaching conversation, and facilitated reflection for a colleague.

How have you broadened your understanding of the science of reading with colleagues? What do you do to stay current with the evolving nature of this discipline?

"Leaders who put too much faith in their heroic tales of the past and project simplistic versions of the future can be alluring - and ruinous. To escape we need to find our way out of our simple stories and back into our complex real ones."

- Jennifer Garvey Berger

Starting November 7 through December 16, I will be responding to Teaching Readers (Not Reading) by Peter Afflerbach, plus inviting readers to join me. In this book study, you will develop a deeper understanding of the science(s) of reading and build greater confidence in conversing about literacy instruction with teachers and other colleagues.

To participate:

1. Purchase the book on the publisher's website, Amazon, or wherever it is sold.

2. Subscribe to this space (if you haven’t already) for future responses to the book.

3. Become a regular and active reader here. I will be sending out another round of invites to engaged readers for the Reading by Example community, where I will be hosting some virtual conversations around the book (kickoff: October 27).

1. You can read my takeaways after summarizing Jill Barshay’s article about dyslexia and the lacking benefits of O-G-based interventions here.

2. Source: “The science of reading explained”, NWEA (Side note: I am surprised at how vague some S.o.R.-aligned organizations and individuals are about this definition. This lack of clarity might be one reason why there is so much confusion and controversy.)

3. For an excellent summary of the research supporting reading instruction that goes beyond the S.o.R. skills and strategies definition, see Teaching Readers (Not Reading) by Peter Afflerbach. Related, join me for a book study of this text starting next month (see above).