I have been reading more about the science of reading, for example the article “How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education” (Reading Research Quarterly). There are many studies supporting reading engagement, yet it is not often referenced in the SoR literature. Thoughts?
One theory is the reading gatekeepers may have a narrow view of what counts as research.
While at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Constance Steinkuehler summarized a series of four studies about video games and boys (https://wcer.wisc.edu/publications/abstract/wcer-working-paper-no.-2011-3). She found that these boys, who were below grade level, could read almost *six levels above* their label in school when reading websites about the games they were playing. Some of their success had to do with their background knowledge, yes, but their interest and motivation drove them to understand the expository text, rereading and self-correcting.
Maybe just as interesting, I was told that Dr. Steinkuehler could not get it published in some major reading research journals. Apparently editors didn't find the paper "fit" with their journal.
It does make you wonder if some of this debate about what is acceptable research in the reading world is not perpetuated by the very people and groups who seek to create clarity.
For clarity, the article I referenced defines the science of reading as "a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method".
Thanks Matt for creating a space for sensible dialogue on what continues to be a contentious topic: the science of reading. I think it's the narrowness of the definition you noted below, which relies solely on the scientific method, that limits discourse and full understanding of what it means to be a reader. Engagement and motivation, as you note in your response citing boys "below grade level" who could read way above grade level when choice and interest were prioritized, is crucial. So are other human an humane factors, such as connecting the heart and mind of the reader, building on a readers' strengths before tackling needs, establishing trusting relationships with students, and ensuring the texts students read respect and honor a student's language, culture, and intellect.
One theory is the reading gatekeepers may have a narrow view of what counts as research.
While at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Constance Steinkuehler summarized a series of four studies about video games and boys (https://wcer.wisc.edu/publications/abstract/wcer-working-paper-no.-2011-3). She found that these boys, who were below grade level, could read almost *six levels above* their label in school when reading websites about the games they were playing. Some of their success had to do with their background knowledge, yes, but their interest and motivation drove them to understand the expository text, rereading and self-correcting.
Maybe just as interesting, I was told that Dr. Steinkuehler could not get it published in some major reading research journals. Apparently editors didn't find the paper "fit" with their journal.
It does make you wonder if some of this debate about what is acceptable research in the reading world is not perpetuated by the very people and groups who seek to create clarity.
For clarity, the article I referenced defines the science of reading as "a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method".
Thanks Matt for creating a space for sensible dialogue on what continues to be a contentious topic: the science of reading. I think it's the narrowness of the definition you noted below, which relies solely on the scientific method, that limits discourse and full understanding of what it means to be a reader. Engagement and motivation, as you note in your response citing boys "below grade level" who could read way above grade level when choice and interest were prioritized, is crucial. So are other human an humane factors, such as connecting the heart and mind of the reader, building on a readers' strengths before tackling needs, establishing trusting relationships with students, and ensuring the texts students read respect and honor a student's language, culture, and intellect.