interpreting data, and drawing conclusions about instruction and effectiveness. The theoretical knowledge about frameworks and approaches to teaching reading based on students’ data allows the classroom teacher to identify research and evidence-based targeted instruction matched to individual needs, including explicit, systematic instruction in phonics for struggling readers and students with dyslexia.
Conclusion
Teaching reading has always involved a “science” from multiple disciplines, perspectives, and frameworks; the “science of reading” (SOR) as used by some reflects a more singular perspective. The current dyslexia debate values a definition for SOR that is representative of new research (i.e., brain scans, fMRIs) focused on only certain types of readers (i.e., dyslexic) that comes out of certain types of research studies (i.e., basic, empirical) conducted by certain fields (i.e., cognitive psychology). This definition of SOR is used to usurp what is known from reading research across centuries (from Aristotle and Plato, to Allington and Pearson) that informs reading and reading instruction for a variety of readers (i.e., “good readers” research and diverse reader profiles, including those who struggle) using a variety of methodologies (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, mixed, etc.) and from a range of fields and disciplines (i.e., language and literacy, linguistics, psycholinguistics, anthropology, developmental psychology, special education, curriculum and instruction, neuroscience, speech-language pathology, as well as cognitive psychology). Teacher educators strive to present how having multiple perspectives allows pre-service teachers to access different approaches, including structured literacy, language, and cognitive psychology perspectives embedded in a lot of the literature on dyslexia, that address the needs of their diverse learners (readers) rather than the needs of a specific curriculum or program. We know it is teachers that make the difference, not programs. Acknowledging teachers as competent professionals includes extending an invitation to be involved in the reading curriculum and assessments selection, ongoing professional development, and trust in their professional judgement about best practice for core and remedial reading instruction.
References
Alexander, P. (2020). What research has revealed about readers’ struggles with comprehension in the digital age: Moving beyond the phonics versus whole language debate. Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0), 1-9. doi:10.1002/rrq.331
Clay. M. (2005). An observational survey of early literacy achievement (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2). 293-323.
Teachers.
Moats, L. (2020). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. American Federation of Teachers https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/moats.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) U.S. Department of Education. (2019). National Assessment of Educational Progress. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/moats.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) U.S. Department of Education. (2019). National Assessment of Educational Progress. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
Schwartz, S. (2019, December 3). The most popular reading programs aren’t backed by science. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-most-popular-reading-programs-arent-backed-by-science/2019/12
Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Seidenberg, M. S. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review 96(4), 523-568. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523
Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0), 1-13. doi:10.1002/rrq.349
Solari, E J., Terry, N. P., Gaab, N., Hogan, T. P., Nelson, N. J., Pentimonti, J. M., Petscher, Y., & Sayko, S. (2020). Translational science: A road map for the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0), pp. 1-14. doi:10.1002/rrq.357
Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 281-291
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effect in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407
Wetzel, M. M., Skerrett, A., Maloch, B., Flores, T. T., Infante-Sheridan, M., Murdter-Atkinson, J., Godfrey, V. C., & Duffy, A. (2020). Resisting positionings of struggle in “Science of Teaching Reading” discourse: Counterstories of teachers and teacher educators in Texas. Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0), 1-12. doi:10.1002/rrq.358
Wexler, N. (2019/2020). The knowledge gap. New York, NY: AVERY; Penguin Random House.
.
.
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add textllll