The Reading Instruction Show: Recent Episodes
Dr. Andy Johnson
The Reading Instruction Show is a podcast about reading instruction (and other things) with a little bit of attitude. There is plenty here to inform and entertain all.
• Purpose: Readers will understand how the three cueing system is used to recognize words.
• Behavioral objective: After reading this chapter, the reader will throw a pie in the face of any clown who suggests that the three-cueing system (a) is a strategy, (b) is an approach to reading instruction, or (c) that it teaches students to guess at words.
The NAEP proficiency levels were arbitrarily defined (Bracey, 2008; Ravitch, 2012; Reinking, Hruby, & Risko, 2023). These levels should be interpreted with extreme caution (Vaulton, 2025). The National Center for Education Statistics website provides three reasons for this (NCES, 2025):
-
Proficiency levels are based on desired expectations. Meaning that these levels are aspirational not mathematical.
-
These proficiency levels are currently being used on a trial basis.
-
Further evidence is needed to determine if these proficiency levels are “reasonable, valid, and informative”.
If you’re looking for accessible, research-based information that slices through the endless loads of overly worded baloney, I would encourage you to subscribe to my free Substack, The Reading Instruction Show.
Substack: The Reading Instruction Show
https://thereadinginstructionshow.substack.com/
Reading is a thinking process, not a responding-to-stimuli process or a sounding-out-words process. And since cognitive psychology studies human thinking; it makes good sense to examine the reading process from a cognitive or thinking perspective using the information processing model.
• Purpose statement: The reader will develop a basic understanding of reading from a cognitive perspective.
• Behavioral objective: After reading this chapter, the reader will be able to explain why penguins continue to insist the Dr. Johnson doesn’t believe in direct and explicit phonics instruction.
https://thereadinginstructionshow.substack.com/p/reading-and-the-information-processing
Important Terms
• Round-robin reading – going around the table or around the room and having each student in turn read a section of text out loud. This is a teaching strategy that should very rarely (if ever) be used.
• Popcorn reading – a form of round-robin reading except that the teacher randomly selects students to read a section of text out loud. This is designed to keep all students paying attention and on their toes. This is a teaching strategy that should very rarely (if ever) be used.
• Metacognition – thinking about thinking. In the context of reading, it means to pause and check for understanding. Does it make sense? Does it fit in the paragraph?
• Word recognition – you see a word in print an instantly know what it is.
• Word identification – you see and word in print that you don’t recognize. You must consciously employ some strategy to recognize it.
• Clown – a humorous circus performer. In the context of reading, it’s the term used to denote one who thinks they know a great deal about something when in fact, they know very little.
• Penguin or phonics penguin - one who thinks that heavy phonics and decoding should be the primary focus of early reading instruction. Every reading problem becomes a phonics problem and every solution becomes a phonics solution because that’s all they know.
• Lexicon – the dictionary in your head. These are all the words in your vocabulary. These words are known at various levels.
If you’re looking for accessible, research-based information that slices through the endless loads of overly worded baloney, I would encourage you to subscribe to my free Substack, The Reading Instruction Show.
Substack: The Reading Instruction Show
https://thereadinginstructionshow.substack.com/
The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) recently put out another technical report. This technical report graded 700 teacher preparation programs across the country (Ellis, et al., 2026). However, a critical evaluation shows why this report can’t be taken seriously. It contains an abundance of misinformation, disinformation, and convenient inaccuracies. It’s not known if these were intentional on the part of the writers or a result of a lack of knowledge.
If you’re looking for accessible, research-based information that slices through the endless loads of overly worded baloney, I would encourage you to subscribe to my free Substack, The Reading Instruction Show.
Substack: The Reading Instruction Show
https://thereadinginstructionshow.substack.com/
Matthew 7: 1-2.
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”
My MAGA Christian friends tell me I’m not supposed to judge them. They quote Matthew 7: 1-2 as if it’s a get-out-of-jail card, then they do whatever the hell they want to do.
https://dr731.substack.com/p/my-maga-friends-tell-me-not-to-judge
If you’re looking for accessible, research-based information that slices through the endless loads of overly worded baloney, I would encourage you to subscribe to my free Substack, The Reading Instruction Show.
Substack: The Reading Instruction Show
https://thereadinginstructionshow.substack.com/
In 2026, the Minnesota Department of Education requires teachers to be toadies who follow approved teachers’ manuals with fidelity. All the love of reading has been stomped out of students. Reading, writing, listening, thinking, and critically evaluating information has been replaced by remembering, responding, regurgitating, and filling in bubbles on standardized tests.
This story ends where it began, in 1981. The Read Act Minnesota is the flux capacitor that has brought us screaming forward to the past (see Figure 4.4). We’ve been transported back to 1981 but it’s much worse this time around.
If you’re looking for accessible, research-based information that slices through the endless loads of overly worded baloney, I would encourage you to subscribe to my free Substack, The Reading Instruction Show.
Substack: The Reading Instruction Show
https://thereadinginstructionshow.substack.com/
Just because a book, article, or presentation includes pictures of a brain or uses a whole bunch of big brain words, does not mean the information presented is always accurate or scientific. We must be responsible consumers of all information, and this includes brain imaging research for reading instruction.
By Dr. Andy Johnson, Executive Director, ILEC
Push back against top-down SoR mandates that disempower teachers. Get involved with the International Literacy Educators Coalition (ILEC). It’s free.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd-nZ_vlQu1b-TfDLj3Ryk01lVfJuRWTTMeuyIaEdAKKMiWBQ/viewform?usp=sharing&ouid=104234491744726588097
Push back against top-down SoR mandates that disempower teacher. Get involved with ILEC. Sign up at this link:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd-nZ_vlQu1b-TfDLj3Ryk01lVfJuRWTTMeuyIaEdAKKMiWBQ/viewform?usp=sharing&ouid=104234491744726588097
Feeling deluged by SOR media, materials, and mandates?
Science of Reading’s murky waters have crested, says Dr. Hruby. Our classrooms are ours to reclaim if we strategize now. Join Dr. Hruby in a conversation about why SOR may be on the outs, the backstories behind it, and how we can take back control of our teaching and students’ learning.
In Minnesota our special reading law called The Read Act. The Read Act makes certain kinds of reading instruction mandatory and other kinds illegal. I will confess that during the last two years at Minnesota State University, Mankato, I’ve been teaching illegal reading instruction. Every day I expect masked READ agents to kick down my door, handcuff me, and drag me off to a LETRS training facility somewhere in Wyoming or Texas.
Prince of Peace. How’s that working out for you? How’s that peace thing going? I have to be honest, I don’t see a lot of peace coming out of my Jesus-loving MAGA friends. I see anger, hatred, retribution, violence, and lies.
Peace on earth, goodwill toward men (and women and children and animal life and our planet). How’s that goodwill working out for you? Are you feeling it? Is your will good? Or is it selfish? Did I misread Luke? Did the angel say, “Selfish will to all”?
I don’t see a lot of goodwill emanating from the Jesus-loving MAGA folks. I see greed, selfishness, violence, indifference, entitlement. I’m sorry. That’s what I’m seeing. And now I see war. And I see killing. And I see people being beat up and locked up. The Christian bible has policies about these sorts of things.
Effective teachers are reflective teachers (Sternberg & Williams, 2010; Zeichner & Liston, 2010). They think about what they’re doing, what they did, and what they’re going to do. There are two levels of reflection: surface level and deep meaning. Both are necessary. But one without the other is not sufficient.
The bible is quite clear on this point: To hell with you who support the Rich Man while Brother Lazarus is sick and starving. To hell with you. To hell with you who turn your back on the poor, the sick, and the strangers among us. To hell with those of you who protect the people who raped and trafficked young girls. To hell with you. The bible cannot be more clear on this point.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-188718695
Videos, articles, and much more at my free Substack: Transpersonal Christianity
https://dr731.substack.com/
The argumentation process is the foundation of academic discourse within the academy. It’s worked well for centuries, enabling our various academic fields to continually evolve. These arguments usually take place in academic journals, academic conferences, and various other academic presentations.
This podcast describes simple, pragmatic, research-based tips for parents to help their child with reading at home and over the summer.
Videos, articles, and much more at my free Substack: Transpersonal Christianity
https://dr731.substack.com/
This is a good time to revist systemic racism. Trump posted a racist tweet, showing the heads of Barak and Michelle Obama on Monkeys. He won’t apologize for this. Many Trump Republican supporters refused to call him out for this.
Somebody accused me of twisting scripture to fit my political perspective. I didn’t know that wanting to stop the bullying, beating, imprisonment, and killing was a political perspective. I didn’t know that wanting to feed the hungry, attend to the sick and poor was a political perspective. In this Sermon Short I will twist some more biblical scripture at you.
Psalm 51:10 says, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me."
Matthew 5:8 . “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Matthew 12:34. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
Matthew 15:18-20. But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.
Matthew 5:8. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
https://dr731.substack.com/p/twisted-biblicap-scripture
Jurnalists should not get a free pass on ignorance. This podcast describes the difference between journalists and literacy scholars.
Just because it says it’s ‘research-based’ or ‘scientifically based’ doesn’t mean that it is. Dr. Louisa Moats’ website states that, “Moats developed the landmark professional development program LETRS for teachers and reading specialists and the scientifically based LANGUAGE!” This presentation will demonstrate (a) how Moats misrepresents the results of her own research, (b) how she falsifies and distorts the research of others in her 2021 paper, and (c) how the publishers of LETRS (Lexia Learning) misrepresent the 18 research studies describes in their LETRS Efficacy Research paper.
There are travelers who have been beaten, robbed, and left on the side of the road. Why are you walking by? Stop the abuse. Stop ICE.
Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
Matthew 9:17 - Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”
Mark 2: 22 - And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”
Luke 5:37-39 . And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved. And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”
“Ephesians 2: 3-5. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Hebrews 4: 12. For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
James 1:19 says, “My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry, for a man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.”
Matthew 23: 27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.
Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”
“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: (a) haughty eyes, (b) a lying tongue, (c) hands that shed innocent blood, (d) a heart that devises wicked schemes, (e) feet that are quick to rush into evil, (f) a false witness who pours out lies, and (g) a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.”
This podcast explains eight commonly misunderstood terms related to reading instruction.
• Reading.
• Word recognition.
• Word identification
• Decoding
• Strategy.
• Skill
• Systematic phonics instruction.
• A balanced approach.
Below are seven big ideas that you should take from this chapter.
-
Having a body of knowledge is important in any field.
-
Disagreement followed by academic discourse enables a field to evolve.
-
Silencing opposing views results in cognitive inbreeding.
-
Academic journals are essential for disseminating new knowledge and for academic discourse within a field.
-
The process used to get scholarly articles published in an academic journal is much higher than that used to get an article published in a newspaper or magazine.
-
Having a body of knowledge that is shallow and disjointed is not optimal for academic discussions or TV interviews.
-
John Stossel does not know what an academic journal is.
Let’s review. A couple of months ago, I recorded an online interview for a dyslexia summit. I also put together and recorded a short video presentation. These were both to be shown at a dyslexia summit. I was to then attend the online summit for a live question-and-answer session. On the day of the summit, I emailed to see what time I needed to be online. It was at this point that I was told that I had been disinvited. And my disinvitation had occurred without so much as a disinviting word. It was a gentle but wordless disinvitations.
Can you imagine such a thing?
The stated reason for my wordless disinvitation was that the writing tone used on some of my digital platforms “is fairly abrasive when speaking about those in other camps in the reading world”. In a previous excerpt, I examined how the abrasiveness of one’s writing tone is determined largely by the cognitive framework held by the reader. I also said that the wordless disinvitation I received was a form of silencing. And any abrasiveness in my writing tone pales in comparison with the continued abrasion endured by teachers and professors as well as the constant attacks on Lucy Calkins, Ken Goodman, and Marie Clay.
In this excerpt, we’ll examine reading camps.
It is very hard to have a serious and substantive discussion about a topic like reading instruction with somebody whose knowledge base is shallow and disjointed. You end up in a teaching role.
The abrasiveness of a writing tone is determined largely by the cognitive framework held by the reader. A cognitive framework is the mentally constructed structures that guide individuals in interpreting the world. It becomes the lens through which the world is viewed. Much like a theory, a cognitive framework is used to explain facts and understand phenomena.
Some see my writing as abrasive and ill-informed. Others see my writing as non-abrasive and insightful. Regardless, to silence, dismiss, or disinvite somebody based on their perceived tone … is … well, it’s the Science of Reading.
This podcast describes the following:
Words - sound groups that represent things in the real world.
Buzzwords - are words used to elicit an emotional response rather than accurately transmitting information.
Propagating lexiconic locution – an overuse of academic buzzwords.
Weasel words - words are used to give the impression of something without really saying something.
Strawman argument – Creating a cartoonish or distorted version of something then arguing against the cartoon.
In a recent show, I referred to Emily Hanford as the Alexa App of reading instruction. This was a metaphor, a common literary device in which one makes a comparison without using the words ‘like’ or ‘as’. It creates an image. When we say America is a melting pot, we don’t literally mean there’s a big pot bubbling somewhere. Metaphors create images and communicate things that lists of words cannot. Recently, somebody took great umbrage of my use of metaphor. This was selective umbrage. If you want to take umbrage at something, take umbrage at the money wasted to pay for commercial products and services. Take umbrage at over-crowed classrooms and poor teaching conditions. Take umbrage at low teacher pay and lack of legitimate professional development opportunities. Take umbrage at tax cuts that make tuition costs rise. Take umbrage when the public cannot afford to go to our public colleges and universities. Take umbrage at the lack of health care, food insecurity, and mass shootings.
If somebody makes the claim that research says something, one has an obligation to have read a research article at least once in their life. And if somebody says, “Show me the research,” that person should know what research is and how to read and interpret it.
Legitimate professional development for teachers is necessary. I used the term ‘legitimate’ to exclude programs and services that are profit-based. These are usually little more than infomercials disguised as professional development. Here, there is no check and balance. There is no blind peer review of the information provided. Only the information that supports their product or service is presented. Information that does not is not. The best example of this is LETRS professional development for teachers. As described in earlier chapters, there is no legitimate research provided to suggest that using LETRS (a) enhances students' reading achievement, (b) enhances teachers’ ability to teach effectively, and (c) is more effective than other types of professional development. (Remember, having elements that are supported by research doesn’t make the program research-based. Every program has some element that can be supported by research.)
Toadys sometimes call themselves “consultants”. They promote methods and say things that just happen to coincide with the products and services being sold by Big Publishing. Quite a coincidence, yes? Right and wrong are not determined based on what’s right and wrong; rather, by what will sell.
Despite having the word “science” in their title, the proposals put forth by the SoR are not grounded in science at all, but in pseudo-science, I-think-isms, and anecdotal evidence. In fact, they are promoting an ideology.
Real science. Real science puts forth conclusions and recommendations based on a wide body of research. Real science uses systematic methods to collect and analyze data. Real science draws conclusions only from data collected. And real science uses blind peer review for an objective system of checks and balances.
Ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and beliefs. An ideology puts forth a dogma based on a very narrow range of data that must be adhered to. What the SOR promotes is based far more on a reading belief system than reading science. Hence, the SOR would be more accurately named, the Ideology of Reading.
One of the reasons why the Science of Reading people have been so successful is that they’ve been writing to the people over there. They’ve used stories and radio documentaries that sound very much like the way people talk. They’ve enabled the people over there to see and hear real people while our quiet very reasoned third-person voice has been ignored
There never was a reading war. A war assumes there are two armies meeting on a field of battle. This didn’t happen. But there was a reading coup. There was a hostile takeover of the field of literacy instruction by profiteers who saw public education as their own private ATM machine. This group of profiteers is part of the educational industrial complex which includes Cambium-Lexia Learning, Pearson Education, Cengage Learning, Hough Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill Education, Voyager Sopris Learning, TAL Education Group, Bright Horizons, and KinderCare Learning. Their armies of well-paid toadies (consultants) promise schools simple solutions to complex problems.
“Just buy our shiny new products,” they say. “Pay for our services,” they say. “Get trained by our experts,” they say, “and all your literacy problems will go away. All your students will be reading above grade level.”
“Well, I don’t know,” the school says. “That’s a lot of money.”
“Look,” they say, “look at all the colorful charts and graphs. Look at all the pretty, pretty numbers.”
“Well,” the school says, “you do have numbers. That must mean it’s real.”
“Wouldn’t you like to have colorful charts and graphs like this? Wouldn’t you like to have pretty, pretty numbers?”
“Yes,” the school says. “Yes, I would.”
And that, my friends, is how education lost its soul.
Neuroscience is a study of the nervous system including the brain, spinal cord, and neurons (NIH, 2025). The neuroscience of reading looks at how the brain functions during reading using imaging techniques to detect blood flow and electrical energy (Gotlieb, et al., 2022). Cognitive science is based on the word ‘cognition’ which means thinking. Cognitive science looks at human thinking (Robinson-Riegler & Robinson-Riegler, 2012). One studies the physical brain as it thinks and the other studies the thinking the brain does. But we can’t observe thinking directly. We can only observe the effects of thinking. Thus, both fields look at the effects of thinking to make deductions about thinking itself.
The first part of this podcast is designed to help you understand how reading works from a purely cognitive perspective. This provides an important context for the second part where I examine the theory of orthographic mapping (Ehri, 2014). Orthographic mapping is a theory based on logical deductions made from research. The questions we must ask are how robust is the theory, how valid are the data upon which it is based, and how logical are the deductions? My conclusions are, not very, not very, and not very.
In this podcast, I try to make sense of orthographic mapping, a term invented by Linnea Ehri and introduced in Chapter 15 (Ehri, 2014). We’ll start with her definition:
“Orthographic mapping occurs when, in the course of reading specific words, readers form connections between written unit, either single graphemes or larger spelling patterns, and spoken units, either phonemes, syllables, or morphemes. These connections are retained in memory along with meanings and enable readers to recognize words by sight. An important consequence of orthographic mapping is that the spellings of words enter memory and influence vocabulary learning, the processing of phonological constituents in words, and phonological memory” (Ehri, 2014, pp. 5-6)
This is written with all the stunning clarity of a Rorschach inkblot. Let’s do a bit of unpack-O-rating.
The term “direct and explicit instruction” is often used to sell products or to persuade state legislators to make bad decisions. But everybody already uses direct instruction in some form. It's not the 'what' of direct instruction that is in question; it's the 'how' and 'how much' of direct instruction. T
Our big human brains have evolved to become very efficient predicting machines (Hawkins, 2004). They are constantly accessing multiple data sources in order to give us a sense of what will happen next. Most of this is done at levels below our conscious awareness. For example, baseball players are able to run to the right spot to catch balls in the outfield because they can predict where it’s going to come down. Their big human brains instantly process a variety of information related to the sound of the bat hitting the ball as well as the height, speed, and angle of trajectory.
The same prediction process is used in language comprehension and reading (Gavard & Ziegler, 2022; Lupyan & Clark). Here, our prediction machine uses semantic, syntactic, and phonological information to make micro-predictions about words and meaning during the process of reading (Goodman, 1967; Laroche & Decon, 2019). Very much like baseball players catching pop flies, this enables us to efficiently and effectively create meaning with the print before us.
The problem with Orton-Gillingham and similar for-profit products (Lindamood, Wilson Language Training, Barton System, etc.) is that they try to reduce teaching to an algorithm. An algorithm is a formula for solving problems in which you follow a step-by-step set of procedures (with fidelity) to achieve a specific outcome. In other words, by correctly following a prescribed set of steps in the specified order, you will be led to a predefined solution. Algorithms are useful in mathematics and computer science for calculation, data processing, and automatic reasoning. For teaching of any kind? Not so much.
However, Orton-Gillingham would have you believe that if the teaching algorithm is followed explicitly, the teacher can be assured that students will learn to read. And if the algorithm does not work, you run them through the algorithm again … and again … and again. What these algorithmic programs offer is a false sense of certainty. Despite all the certainty thrown about, research to support the long-term effectiveness of these “direct, explicit, multi-sensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive” instruction, it is simply not evident (Compton, et. al., 2014).
When somebody askes you, “What’s the Science of Reading?” what do you say? Is it a process? Is it a set of strategies? An approach or method? A reading program? A group or organization? In this chapter, I will attempt to define the Science of Reading. And notice that I’m using capital letters. This enables us to differentiate between a science of reading as one of several sciences of reading and the Science of Reading as a proper noun or title,
The Science of Reading seems to refer to a general consensus related to the strategies and practices that lead to improved reading outcomes. These strategies and practices have been determined to be effective using experimental or quasi-experimental research and conducted in authentic learning environments. Also, this research has established a causal link between strategies or practices and student outcomes (reading achievement). Thus, the Science of Reading can be thought of as a process that uses the standards in Figure 16.2 when making decisions related to reading instruction and policy. However, the SoR might best be described today as a self-defined movement that advocates these standards be used for making decisions related to reading policy and instruction.
The really big point is this: It’s the semantic connections that are most important, not orthographic, graphemic, or phonemic connections. When you encounter the words ‘elephant’ you don’t connect with short /e/ words. You don’t activate words containing the /ant/ letter pattern or words with silent ‘ph’ blends. You connect with elephant things, regardless of the letter sounds or patterns.
Just hearing the word ‘elephant’ brought some of the elephant things in your elephant schemata to consciousness. Meaning that, if elephant were followed by the words sock, trunk, swallow, you’d be able to identify the word ‘trunk’ microseconds faster than the other non-related words (Higgins, Rholes, & Jones,1977). This is called priming. Priming looks at how something that comes before primes or impacts what follows. The very word ‘elephant’ primed the pump so that I would be able to identify elephant words quicker and more efficiently. We’ll be looking at some of these research studies below.
-
It’s not a strategy to teach students.
-
It’s not a pedagogical strategy that teachers use.
-
It doesn’t exclude phonics instruction.
-
It doesn’t encourage children to use picture clues to figure out words.
-
It’s not an approach to teaching reading.
-
It’s not a method of “decoding” printed text.
-
It’s not a “staple of early reading instruction”.
-
It’s not whole language
-
It doesn’t exclude explicit and systematic instruction.
In his book, Global Mind Change (1989), Willis Harman describes three views of reality which he calls metaphysical perspectives. Metaphysical here refers to ontology or the question of the origins of the universe and the nature of reality. These perspectives are materialistic monism, dualism, and transcendental monism.
Why do we sometimes believe the unbelievable? Why is it our views are sometimes data-resistant? We like to think that reality determines our beliefs; however, at higher levels of belief systems, our beliefs determine reality. It's just the way of things.
There’s a difference between (a) reading research related to reading instruction and (b) reading what others have said about research related to reading instruction. It’s important to know the difference. When you read research articles, you get to evaluate the methodology and interpret that data. When you read what somebody else has written about research, you must trust that their evaluation is fair, and their interpretation of the data is accurate. You are reliant on the relative clarity of their lens.
So, far too often you’re left with people like me whose job it is to continually read and evaluate research. But this chapter is written so that you will be able to do this. It’s written to make me obsolete.
This is what Ken Goodman wrote in 1967:
“Reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game. It involves an interaction between thought and language. Efficient reading does not result from precise perception and identification of all elements, but from skill in selecting the fewest, most productive cues necessary to produce guesses which are right the first time. The ability to anticipate that which has not been seen, of course, is vital in reading, just as the ability to anticipate what has not yet been heard is vital in listening (Goodman, 1967, p. 127)
The term, psycholinguistic guessing game” has been commonly taken out of context and misunderstood by those who would propose a skills-based approach to reading instruction. Remember, context matters. In the context in which it was used, this term refers to the process used by your brain to maximize efficiency during reading.
In 1967, Ken Goodman published an article in Reading Research Quarterly with the title` Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game (Goodman, 1967). Here he applies Psycholinguistic Theory to the reading process. A pretty good article. I highly recommend reading it. However, two words have been pulled from the title ‘reading’ and ‘guessing’. These two words have become a Rorschach inkblot test for those who would disagree with or who don’t understand Dr. Goodman’s ideas. All sorts of dark and scary images have been projected upon them. These Rorschach-ian projections have been used for the last 50 years to misrepresent whole language and to discredit the work of Ken Goodman.
This is a wonderful conversation that I had with Claude Goldenberg. He has different ideas about things but he is a delight to talk with.
As said throughout this book: if you are against something, you should at the very least know a little somebody about that which you are against. SoR enthusiasts are often against something that isn’t. In this case, they are against what they call balanced literacy, but it certainly isn’t balanced literacy. It turns out that they’re against their un-understanding of balanced literacy.
So let’s begin by defining our terms: Balanced literacy is merely balancing skills instruction with opportunities to practice those skills in authentic reading contexts. And what that balance is depends on the student. Some students need more skills instruction and less practice, others need less skills instruction and more practice. But all students need lots of reading practice. Could you imagine getting better at anything without practice? Could you imagine being able to play the piano if you never practiced playing real music? How effective would your early learning be if you just did scales and fingering exercises without playing music? Which is a nice transition to the next section.
Structured literacy is based on the idea that people learn complex things best by mastering each little part separately and then putting the parts together to create the whole. This is called part-to-whole instruction or Humpty-Dumptianism. Applied to reading, you would pull apart each of the eight strands of Scarborough’s reading rope, then teach all the little subparts related to each of the eight strands (one little subpart at a time) until all the eight strands and their corresponding subparts were mastered. The theory is that at some point, children would be able to put all the subparts back together again and engage in the act of reading.
It just makes good sense, yes?
There are 26 letters used to make the 44 phonemes found in the English language. These 44 phonemes are represented by over 280 letter-sound combinations. You teach children how to “decode” by first teaching them how to put together all the 280 letter-sound combinations so they can apply them to all the words they will ever encounter. It just makes good sense, yes?
Phonics is important, but if that’s all you’re teaching, you limit students’ ability to recognize words and create meaning with print. And that is the end goal – to create meaning, not to fill out phonics worksheets, or pass end-of-unit tests, or sound out words in isolation
I was having a discussion with a fellow online who insisted that early reading instruction should consist primarily of direct instruction of phonics. His argument was that unlike learning to use oral language, learning to use written language is not a natural process for humans. “We’re not wired to learn these skills” he insisted. “Reading is a uniquely human invention,” he said. According to him, children, starting around age 5 or 6, need lots of direct instruction of letter-sound relationships in order to learn “the code”. When they learn the code, then they can read (or decode).
This is a commonly held idea that seems to make good sense to many. But we want reading instruction to be based on good science, not good sense. So, let’s do a bit of unpack-o-rating:
If you threw a rock into the middle of a pond but that rock was not a rock, can you still be said to have thrown a rock? Likewise, can a standard be said to be a standard if it is not standardized?
We know that science is a good thing, and using science in reading instruction is a good thing. But what exactly is meant by the “science of reading”? What exactly is the Science of Reading? Is it a noun? Is it a verb? Or has it become an adjective or perhaps a metaphor used to indicate something else?
Basic terms are often misunderstood or misapplied by SoR advocates. My goal in this podcast is to bring a little more clarity to three important and often misunderstood terms: science, research, and research methods. In doing so, I hope to move the needle a little bit in helping you become more critical consumers of educational research
Science is both a noun and a verb. It’s a noun when it refers to a field or a system of knowledge within a particular area such as physics, chemistry, or zoology. It is a verb when it references the processes used to develop that system of knowledge (research).
Dr. Elena Aydarova is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a fellow with the National Education Policy Center. Dr. Aydarova’s research examines the interaction between educational policies, education reforms, and policy advocacy. She is an award-winning author of over 40 publications. Dr. Aydarova received postdoctoral fellowships from the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation and the American Association of University Women.
If you can blame students, teachers, and colleges of education, we won’t see the social problems that impact learning. It’s much easier to blame teachers than to fix the actual cause of social problems. However, there is one thing of which we can be certain: If Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill Education, Pearson Education, and Scholastic could sell products to fix one of these social problems, that problem would be the cause of the next educational crisis.
To fully understand this current reading “crisis” (which really isn’t a crisis at all), it must be seen in the context of similar “crises” occurring in the past (which weren’t really crises either). This current “crisis” is not the first reading crisis to come along (Aydarova, 2024; Berliner & Biddle, 1995; McQuillan, 1998; Thomas, 2024), and it certainly won’t be the last. And when this crisis runs its course, there will be a lull followed by another crisis, and then another, and then another. That’s because there will always be those willing to create the illusion of crises for political and economic gain (Altwerger, 2008; Aydarove, 2023). And sadly, it’s an effective tactic … for a time anyway.
The thing about research is that it doesn’t prove anything, at least not in the social sciences. There is no single research that conclusively proves anything once and for all about reading instruction. Research may support a hypothesis. It may provide evidence for something, show something, indicate something, or demonstrate something, but in the social sciences, research doesn’t prove things. The results may indicate, implicate, or illustrate, but educational research doesn’t prove things.
SoR advocates often claim that there is a “proven science” of reading. But when working with variable human beings interacting in variable social situations there are simply too many variables to say that something proves something else conclusively. Instead, research provides evidence for things. A lot of research provides strong evidence. A little research provides weak evidence. There are evidence-based practices (see Chapter *) but there is no “proven science” of reading. But even saying something is evidence-based says nothing about the quality of the evidence or the validity of the evidence.
Words are always encountered in the context of a sign, product, or sentence. In the same way, to be understood, data must be understood and evaluated in the context in which it was collected. Reading research can only be fully understood in the context of a wider array of research studies within a theoretical perspective. And theories must be understood in the context of a paradigm. The Science of Reading movement must be understood in the greater social and political context and in the context of past educational reform movements (NCLB).
If you were to consume a lot of popular media today related to education, you would be led to believe that there is a reading crisis. Apparently, it’s all “deeply concerning”. I can’t help but wonder if this current crisis is a new crisis or an extension of an old crisis. In 1983 the United States was said to be “at risk” because of a crisis that started in 1963 (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Was that crisis ever resolved? Is this crisis an extension of that crisis? Or is it brand new crisis?
In 1983 teachers were told they need to get back to the basics. Did we not get back far enough? Did we not get basic enough? Did our basic backtracking not take? Do we need to get back to basics much harder? Are we still basic backtracking? If we’re not getting back to basics, what are we getting to?
Conclusions
The Science of Reading promotes the exclusionary use of strategies and practices that have been shown to be effective using controlled experimental or quasi-experimental research conducted in actual classroom settings. Further, this standard should be the basis upon which decisions should be made about reading instruction and reading policies. LETRS fails to meet this basic SoR standard.
This podcast examines Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Special (Lexia) or LETRS. I wanted to find the “reliable, trustworthy, and valid evidence” that “has demonstrated” that LETRS had “a record of success in increasing students' reading competency in the areas of phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension”. I was eager to start reading all the research showing that LETRS professional development had a demonstrated record of success in increasing students’ reading competency. Specifically, I was looking for three things:
-
A vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research linking LETRS to improved teaching performance.
-
A vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research linking LETRS to improved student reading outcomes.
-
A vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research providing evidence that LETRS was more effective than other types of professional development in improving teacher performance or student reading outcomes.
Yes, state legislatures have the right to impose statues. Absolutely. But teacher's unions have the right, and the moral obligation to respond. The Read Act and other SoR mandates strip away teachers' right and obligation to provide the type of instruction that is best for their mice-students. They’re forcing teachers to spend hours in state-mandated professional development programs, paid for by state tax dollars. They force schools to purchase state-mandated reading programs. The teaching profession is being de-professionalized and you say nothing. Teachers are now expected to open the teachers’ manual and follow the script. We don’t have mouse-teachers, we have script-followers.
Teacher empowerment has been central to good education. Teachers' unions led to better schools, better educational outcomes, and better teachers. Yet, teachers' unions have let outside interests change public education. You have sat silent as teachers have been asked to do more with less. You’ve sat silence as teachers are forced to implement one-size-fits-all scripted reading programs. Teachers are forced to engage in state-mandated educational malpractice for reading instruction … and you say nothing.
Anybody can say nothing.
The only thing worse than not having a union is having a union that does nothing.
A fact may be true. But the truth of the fact is limited to the context in which it was found. Outside a meaningful context, the fact may mean something different. Also, facts without context can be misapplied and misunderstood. This is true of many of the facts used to support SoR structured approaches to reading instruction known as structured literacy. It is a house built on a series of decontextualized facts.
This is an interview with a Minnesota reading Professor. Ideology has replaced science when it comes to reading instruction in Minnesota.
In 1997 Congress asked the National Institute of Children’s Health and Development to work with the U.S. Department of Education to establish a National Reading Panel. Their task was to evaluate existing research in order to find the best ways of teaching children to read. In 2000 the panel issued their 500-page report (National Reading Panel, 2000). This report has been widely cited in books and journal articles related to reading instruction.
The NRP describes five-pillars are reading instruction. The SoR zealots and state reading laws describe these as five foundation reading skills. They are: phonemic awareness, phonics, comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency.
It's not that I disagree with the five "pillars" of reading instruction as described by the NRP report and repeated ad nauseam by SoR zealots. My concern is that they're seven pillars short of a full load.
In this podcast, I describe the 12 essential elements of a comprehensive reading program – or comprehensive literacy instruction.
Questions: How is it that one interprets the same thing differently across time? How is it that one can read a book, have an experience, or observe phenomena and draw completely different conclusions when the only thing different is the time in which it was read, experienced, or observed?
Is time a variable in comprehension or understanding? Is it a variable in constructing meaning?
A book that seemed so insightful at one point, with the passage of time, can become meaningless. Likewise, books that I once thought meaningless can sometimes become filled with insight, interesting, and important ideas with the passage of time. Same book. Same person. Same brain.
There are conditions that tip the scale in favor of some groups and restrict or disadvantage others. There are communities, that seem to get the economic opportunities, good schools, good teachers, health care, good nutrition, housing opportunities, small class sizes, community libraries, well-stocked school and classroom libraries … Go to a 3rd-grade classroom in a poor, inner-city school, or poor rural district. Now go to a 3rd grade classroom in a weather suburb. It's like going to a different planet.
Not everybody has the same opportunities. A person is privileged because of their environment and station in life. Communities that are predominantly white seem to have disproportionately more of these privileges and more opportunities. Communities that are predominantly black seem to have more restrictions and fewer opportunities.
The Minnesota Department of Education has become the Evangelical Department of Education of Minnesota. It takes a deficit view of teachers. They know nothing. They do the wrong thing. They must be saved by the Great State
Recently, the Minnesota State Legislature passed the Read Act, sponsored by Democratic representative Heather Edelson. It’s a law based on the fad of the day; the shiny new thing called the “science of reading”. Ironically, this law is based on misconceptions and un-understandings related to both science and reading. This law states that I and other literacy professors in Minnesota must follow, with fidelity, the mandates put forth by state lawmakers. These are lawmakers who have never taught a kid to read, who have never read a research article related to reading instruction, and whose knowledge about reading instruction is reliant on the information given to them by radio journalists and podcasters (present company excepted).
As part of the Read Act, the Minnesota Department of Education is now forcing me, a literacy professor at Minnesota State University, to teach things to my students that a wide range of research has shown to be ineffective in helping young children to become literate (that is, to use reading and writing for real purposes). I am forced to teach the preservice teachers in my literacy methods courses at Minnesota State University to engage in educational malpractice in their future classrooms. The Minnesota Department of Education mandates that these future teachers learn strategies that will impede their future students’ ability to achieve their full literacy potential. I must promote the de-literalization of children by telling teachers to focus primarily on lower-level reading subskills instead of higher-level cognitive functions related to reading and comprehension. Worse, I must teach them how to suck all the joy out of reading.
I could live with a science of reading if the SoR zealots applied the scientific principles they claim to worship and adore to all of reading reality. That is, if the scientific principles that they insist be used to determine what is effective reading instruction were also used to establish cause and effect, I could live with the zealotry. But, they abandon their cherished scientific ideals when identifying problems and evaluating solutions to problems. Look at the reading laws passed by 32 state legislatures. Look at the testimony by “experts”. You will see the word “science” used a lot, but science if much different from ‘I-think-isms’, anecdotal evidence, and personal experiences.
Dance has much to teach us about five areas of reading instruction:
1. Motivation.
2. Practice.
3. Dance dyslexia
4. Whole dancing.
5. Context.
Whenever a new SoR reading law is passed, the SoR zealots gather a bunch of children together for a picture, and they’re told to smile. And you get pictures of happy smiling children with happy parents all smiling and being happy. Wonderful. It’s a joy façade.
Behind the façade is an unwritten narrative. These children were once unhappy and oppressed because of reading instruction. But then a reading law was passed. Now look at them. Glory hallelujah, they’ve got SoR in their heart. They’ve been saved by orthographic mapping. Their lives are better because of decodable texts. Now just look at how happy they are. How can you possibly argue with happiness? And why would you balanced-literacy devils make these happy children unhappy with your hell-based 3 cueing systems?
There is only one emotion that is good for learning: happiness and all its derivations. Joy is a derivation of happiness. Joy is pleasurable. Humans are rewarded by their emotions for doing things that bring them joy. They tend to repeat these behaviors. Fear keeps us from doing certain things. Fear of failure. Fear of humiliation. Also, things that make us sad or unhappy keep us from doing certain things. Being forced to sit in a chair and perform like a trained seal creates sadness, boredom, and frustration.
The SoR zealots fail to realize that we’re teaching children who just happen to be developing human beings, who happen also to be emotional and social beings existing in a sociocultural context. We read and emote with the same brain. It’s silly to think that one would not impact the other. Positive emotions enhance learning, and negative emotions impede learning. Take that to the bank, baby. We’ve got plenty of research to support this. So, we can say with some confidence that creating a positive emotional environment in which there is social interaction, safety, and joy is a research-based strategy.
There are five kinds of time in a reading class.
Allocated time. There is the amount of time allocated for instruction.
Off-task time (OTT). There is OTT when students are doing things unrelated to the lesson or learning objective.
TOT. There is also time on task (TOT), where students are actively engaged in learning activities.
AET. There is Academic Engagement Time (AET). This is the time when students are cognitively and behaviorally on-task or engaged in learning activities that are within their zone of proximal development.
Flow state time. Here the student is completely absorbed, focused on a single task or activity. They are directing all their attention toward something that they are motivated to do or be engaged with.
Academic engagement time is good, but flow state time is the best for learning. Magic teachers, if they are empowered to make the choices that are best for their students know how to align reading instruction with students’ interests to create flow state time. But this does not occur in a structured literacy class.
A teacher's #1 job is to help children fall in love with books. After that, much of reading instruction takes care of itself.
In becoming responsible consumers of educational research, we must ask four questions when claims are made that research has “proven these expensive, code-oriented, one-size-fits-all reading programs to be effective.
-
Are the results of these code-oriented reading programs persistent? That is, do they last after the code-oriented instruction has been discontinued?
-
Do the skills learned in these code-oriented reading programs transfer to real-life situations?
-
Do these code-oriented programs enhance students’ ability to create meaning with print? There’s a difference between scores on a DIBELS test and creating meaning with print.
-
Are these expensive, mind-numbering code-oriented reading programs more effective than balanced literacy instruction which includes reading and talking about good books, and writing a sharing students' authentic writing or stories?
The Science of Reading zealots in Minnesota and in other states around the country (Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, and others) have done something pretty remarkable. (It’s remarkably bad, but still remarkable.) They have banned words. It is now against the law in Minnesota for me to include ‘the three cueing systems’ on my syllabi, reading assignments, or course outlines.
Imagine that. A law telling me what I can and cannot say or can and cannot teach in my literacy methods class. A law put together by people who know nothing of literacy instruction or research. A law put together by people who sound out words instead of reading for meaning. A law put together by people who look at every letter when they read. A law put together by people who ignore syntax and semantics when they read. A law that says I must ignore my three decades of research, scholarly work, and teaching experience. It’s a law that states that I must ignore what a body of research from a variety of different fields has determined to be an empirical fact: that we use multiple forms of information to recognize words while creating meaning with print. According to this brand-spank-n-new Minnesota law, I must instead lie to the students in my literacy methods classes.
It’s an emotional response, make no mistake about that. The decision to abandon good reading instruction and move to what the SoR zealots call structured literacy is an emotional response. The decision to use hyperbole and pejorative statements to dismiss that with which you are unfamiliar is an emotional response. The decision to take the argument out of an academic realm to a political realm, and to threaten and bully those who disagree is an emotional response. The decision to give credence to a radio journalist and ignore real literacy experts is an emotional decision. Now, there’s nothing wrong with an emotional response. Emotions are wonderful things. They are part of what makes us wonderfully and uniquely human. I wish more decisions were more emotional. However, good decisions, just like good literacy instruction – is balanced.
In this podcast I interview Sven Johnson to talk about creativity and the creative process.
There's a literacy inquisition going on in Minnesota. Science of reading zealots are on a holy crusade. They are banning books, banning words, and banning ideas. Books, words, and ideas are dangerous things. They could enable people to think – to think about things – and to think critically. There is a law now in Minnesota, based on the Read Act, sponsored by Representative Heather Edelson that I am NOT to teach the 3-cueing system. I cannot say it. I cannot mention it. I cannot have it on my syllabus. It's illeagal. I can’t even think about it. It’s dangerous. It’s a dangerous thing.
Minnesota passed legislation, The Read Act, manding that I lie to my preservice teachers. It's the law, that I must ignore my 30 years as a scholar, teacher, and tutor and tell my students things that are not true.
Lucy Calkins has made some tremendous contributions – but at the end of the day, she does not represent balanced literacy or a meaningful-based approach to literacy instruction. At the end of the day, Lucy represents Lucy. She speaks for Lucy Calkins. She’s promoting her books, her programs, her products, and her Units of Study. And that’s good. Meaning-based literacy educators are not reliant on any external products.
She doesn’t represent the ILA, the ILEC, or anybody else She does not represent meaning-based educators. She doesn’t represent those who opposed the Science of Reading nonsense. She doesn’t speak for those of us who advocate teacher empowerment, smaller classes, better pay and working conditions for teachers, adequate health care, and economic opportunities, or those of us pushing for racial equity and social justice. She doesn’t.
But there’s no reading messiahs here. There are no reading messiahs. The only messiah that meaning-based reading educators have is a wide body of research using diverse research methodologies. That is our messiah. That is our holy book. That is our religion.
I’m spending time analyzing Jessica Winter’s article in a series of podcasts because it accurately represents the dis-representation and un-understandings of literacy instruction being portrayed by the SoR community as well as other media outlets who are willing to stray far outside the boundaries of accuracy and journalism. They are obviously willing to write or say anything to boost their readership or viewership.
In this podcast, I unpack some of her whacky, zany, nutty comments related to research, balanced literacy, intensive phonics instruction, the science of reading, and word-building instruction
The podcast looks at two different types of systems. Arthur Combs (1999) described two common types of systems used in organizations: top-down (managed) closed systems and person-centered open systems. This podcast contrasts the effects of a top-down closed system and a person-centered open system applied in an educational setting
Reading workshop is an approach to reading instruction that falls within the parameters of whole language. It may seem more complicated, but once you understand the process and structure of reading workshop, a lot easier, and a lot more effective to implement. And it is multilevel and can be individualized to the specific needs and interests of your students.
Reading workshop is not a method with step-by-step procedures that must be followed (with fidelity) like a recipe. Rather, it is an approach to reading instruction based on research and research-based theory related to how humans learn literacy.
Reading workshop is not standardized. In a reading workshop, what you would see would be based on the teacher, students, age, level, etc. What works with one class doesn’t always work with another. Thus, in each teacher's classroom, you might see different things. Reading workshop is structured, it’s planned, there’s very direct and explicit instruction based on individual students' needs, and it’s strongly research-based, using real reading science, based on how real humans best learn.
Beware of simplistic answers for complex problems. They are alluring but alluringly ineffective. One of these simplistic, alluringly ineffective answers to a complex problem is the idea that we can fix all problems in education by holding somebody “accountable.”
This is an interview with Marvin Melvinhaus from the Moms for Liberty. In this podcast we discuss freedom, schools, and LGBT rights.
In the 1980s, basals were the main tool used to teach reading (they still are). A basal is a teaching manual for reading. It includes an anthology of stories for students to read, a teacher’s manual with directions for how to teach reading, and consumable workbooks to use to teach reading subskills. This podcast describes the beginning of my journal from basal instruction to reading workshop.
Corrine Hess published an article titled, Teacher Prep Programs Not on the Same Page as Wisconsin’s New Reading Law on the Wisconsin Public Radio website. I'm analyzing this article because the severe un-understandings of the reading, reading science, and reading instruction displayed here is illustrative of what we see on the national level.
I used to think the world existed to make me happy. I looked for happiness and wondered why I couldn't find it. Eventually, I learned that I exist to make others happy. I discovered that happiness had been there all the time, waiting for me. This is something I wish my literacy professor had told me 40 years ago.
Dysresearchlia is an unwillingness to read or an inability to understand reading research. It impacts 3% to 5% of the population. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a brain disorder. That is, even though brain imaging research has shown there to be anomalies in the brains of dysresearchiliacs; … with a basic educational research course, these anomalies largely disappear. Also, scientists have proven that listening to Dr. Johnson’s podcasts helps mitigate the effects of dysresearchlia in 75.3% of cases. Further, researchers have shown that reading his books cures dysresearchlia in 98.7% of cases. And these are real researchers and scientists … the one’s who wear white lab coats and do commercials about toothpaste and bent carrots on TV. Not those fake ones who publish in academic journals.
The educational overlords would have me teach lies to the students in my undergraduate literacy methods course. I am required to lie.
This is an interview with Paul Gardner. He was a lecturer in England before moving to Australia. He describes a reading instruction police state that cost him his job. If we don't continue to act, this is our Christmas Yet to Be.
You may think you’re teaching reading. This may be so on the surface level, but on the deep level, you’re really teaching your students life. Reading good books, talking about good books, writing our stories, and listening to the stories of others is life. Helping students to use literacy to find out who they are and what they may become is helping them come alive. Teaching students to develop their full literacy potential is bringing them fully to life. Teaching students to be and become literate is life-giving.
We’re not here to just teach children to sound out words. That would not be life-giving. We’re here to help them to be and become literate. To be and become literate is to use reading and writing for authentic purposes. Don’t let the phonics penguins, the number monkeys, and the educational overlords distract you from this.
I had an undergraduate class that didn't go as I would have liked. We've all had these. You do a lot of planning, you plan some activities, and it's clear that students are just not that into it. In this podcast, I use cognitive modeling as I go through a simple 5-step problem-solving process. This process can be used to problem-solve in a classroom or any place else. I then demonstrate how to use a Total Literacy Experience (TLE) activity to solve the problem. With modification, you can use TLE's and the 5-step problem-solving process in any classroom.
This is my second podcast looking at reading instruction issues in the state of Wisconsin. I have two behavior objectives for this podcast: (a) Listeners will be able to define balanced literacy and (b) listeners will be able to provide at least two reasons to explain why the Wisconsin State legislature seems to be part of the clown club.
This podcast is about Wisconsin, but it’s also about the various kinds of attacks perpetrated by those within the Science of Reading movement. By the way, do you know how much Emily Hanford charges for speaking fees?
Susan Vincent is a knowledgeable, experienced literacy educator. This is an incredible conversation.
I’m, analyzing all the things that Jessica Winter got wrong in her article, ‘The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy’ because that’s what I do. I’m using my teeny-tiny little podcast to point out the errors and misinformation of her article written for The New Yorker with a circulation of over 1 million readers. I am assuming her errors weren’t intentional. We are left to conclude that that her errors are based on a lack of knowledge, what is sometimes known as ignorance.
Jessica Winter is an editor at The New Yorker, where she also writes about family and education. She wrote an article for the New Yorker entitled, ‘The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy’. I’m spending time analyzing this article in a series of podcasts because it mis-describes reading instruction in a way that’s really hard to imagine. In so doing, it perfectly represents the mis-descriptions and un-understandings of the SoR movement. Normally I wouldn’t waste a lot of time on a clown like Jessica Winter. As stated earlier, a clown in literacy terms is one who thinks they know a great deal about literacy when in fact, they know relatively little. They know so little, that they don’t even know how little they know. What makes a clown a clown is that they go around making decisions, promoting policies, and advocating change based largely on personal anecdotes, I-think-isms, and selected bits of research. Now, if one limits one’s clownism to the privacy of their own home, clownery would not be a problem. But when clowns with large platforms, like Jessica Winter and Emily Hanford, use their large platforms to spread clownery like an infectious disease, we must waste our time and energy creating an intellectual prophylactic. This is time that could have been spent helping children to achieve their full literacy potential.
Jessica Winter is an editor at The New Yorker, where she also writes about family and education. She wrote an article for the New Yorker entitled, ‘The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy’. In this series of podcasts, I’m analyzing this article because it describes or mis-describes reading instruction. As I started reading, I soon realized that Jessica Winter had no idea of what she was talking about. Her misrepresentation and un-understanding could have a negative impact if readers actually take her seriously. Since the New Yorker has a circulation of over a million readers, I felt I should say something. Will my humble little podcast actually make a difference? Will it change anybody’s mind? Jessica Winter’s article represents everything that’s wrong and harmful about the current Science of Reading movement. That’s why I’m analyzing it. It’s based on a knowledge base related to reading instruction that’s shallow and disjointed at best. It relies on anecdotes, personal experiences, and emotions to create a picture that’s not at all accurate. And like the science of reading movement, this article uses a very un-scientific process to try to understand reading instruction. And when you use un-scientific methodology to come to know things you must expect to get cartoonish portrayals and misinformation. It is a bit ironic that a movement with “science” in the title (science of reading), is in actuality so very unscientific in its methods used to understand reading reality.
Yesterday I recorded a podcast that was full of sarcasm and biting comments about an article that Jessica Winter wrote for the New Yorker where she used the term "Vibes-Based Literacy" to demean something she obviously didn't understand. Some have said I was a little harsh. In this podcast I explain why we (I) sometimes have to resort to sarcasm and other childish things.
This podcast examines an article written in The New Yorker called, 'The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy'. It was written by Jessica Winter. She's an editor at The New Yorker, where she also writes about family and education. She is also, a clown. A clown, in literacy terms, is a person who thinks they know much about literacy, when in fact, their knowledge base is very shallow and disjointed. What makes a clown a clown is their clownery. This is when they write or speak as if they know a lot about things with which they actually know very little. We laugh at clowns. I laugh at Jessica Winter. I also laugh at Emily Hanford because they’re clowns and they don’t realize that they’re clowns. They see themselves as great crusaders for the betterment of our “children’s” education. Ha, ha, ha. Very funny. This is the first in a series of podcasts examining this article. In this podcast, I try to help Jessica Winter understand what Reading Workshop is.
We live in an age of clownery. In today’s clown age, radio journalists (Emily Hanford) get more attention from schools, state legislators, and even groups like the Illinois Reading Council than do teachers, serious academicians, researchers, and scholars when talking about reading instruction. In this age of clownery, for-profit groups are making decisions about what gets taught in our schools and what kind of professional development teachers receive. The voices of teachers and literacy experts, scholars, researchers have been silenced while the faceless moneychangers from the educational industrial complex are amplified But one of the problems in combating clowns is the effectiveness of their own clownery. Amongst the clutter of jokes disguised as facts, it can be difficult to get accurate (truthful) information out to the public. Today, know-nothing radio journalists are considered experts in reading instruction. As well, an article or column in a newspaper or magazine, written by a reporter who is hired to write about stuff about everything, gets more attention than a solid, peer-reviewed article published in an academic journal. That’s just the way of things. That’s how most come to understand reality. Decision makers are bottle-fed the warm milk of distortion from the teat of American Public Media.
00:48 Phonemic Awareness
08:25 Reading
14:04 Word Recognition
26:02 Decoding
29:03 Professional Development
34:28 Dyslexia
40:20 Balanced Literacy
51:10 Reading Crisis
55:57 Orthography
58:10 Systematic Phonics Instruction
1:00:23 Alphabetic Principle
This is a conversation with Anna Hamman, another master teacher. We are looking to have teachers like this impacting our field.
if you’re one of those people running around saying the 3 cueing system has been debunked, you might as well get one of those ‘hello’ stickers, and write, “Hello, I’m ignorant” on it. Then stick it right in the middle of your forehead. Because that’s what you’re saying to the world. "Hello, I'm ignorant!"
This is my conversation with Stephanie Fuhr. She is a master teacher who was forced to leave her classroom because she couldn't bring herself to committee educational malpractice. We can't afford to lose our master teachers.
This is my conversation with master literacy teacher, Ronda Schlumbohm. Why in heaven's name are people listening to no-nothing clowns like Emily Hanford and not knowledgeable expert teachers of reading like Ronda Schlumbohm?
This is a recording of a conversation with Dave Boulton. He and I have different views on reading instruction. Hopefully, we are modeling how to have respectful academic discussions.
Why is it that reading instruction sometimes ineffective? This podcast addresses two reasons: (a) the myth of standardization and (b) a lack of understanding related to the reading process,
Children naturally want to learn. They want to make sense of their environment. They naturally want to create meaning with print. However, when you teach children in ways that don’t align with their natural inclination, you make learning harder. You create more frustration and failures. And when children communicate their frustration with their behavior, you use PBIS to try to make the behaviors go away. You seek to suppress and correct the behaviors for which you are largely responsible. You are addressing the effect instead of the cause – but you (Emily Hanford, Louisa Moats, and SoR ideologists) are the cause. I am not saying that bad SoR reading instruction is the cause of all bad behavior. I am not saying that PBIS should never be used. But I am saying that when students are engaged in their learning and when they are enjoying what they’re doing, and when they are successful at what they’re doing, and when learning is something they do instead of something that’s done to them … there are far, far, far fewer behavior problems and much more learning. I'm just saying.
Point #1: Teachers and administrators must become informed and responsible consumers of educational research. When somebody says, “research shows this” or “research proves that …” We must always ask, “What research? Give me a citation. Effective for what? At what level? For what purpose? How?” And then we must look at the research study. Point #2: State and federal legislators, those who want to impose mandates on teachers, telling them what and how to teach. Pull your heads out of your collective asses. Do what is right not what is politically expedient. If you’re not going to review the research related to reading instruction, at least call in those who have. Stop making educational decisions based on the testimony of radio journalists. Point #3: We want all students to achieve their full literacy potential. Science of Reading ideologists, I know that’s your intent. It’s a good intent. But intent does not mitigate impact. In five years, when the full impact of what you’ve done will be realized, and people understand just how much time, money, and resources you have wasted, I’ll be doing another podcast. This one will be called, “I Told You So.”
Knowledge is important in any endeavor. It’s what separates novices from experts. Experts have more of it. Novices have less of it. Expert teachers have four kinds of knowledge:(a) content knowledge – knowledge of what they’re teaching. This would be math, if you’re a math teacher. Science if you’re a science teacher. And everything if you’re an elementary education teacher. (b) pedagogical knowledge. This is knowledge of basic teaching strategies such as discovery learning, question-asking, discussions, inquiry learning, and cooperative learning.(c) pedagogical content knowledge – This is knowledge of teaching strategies for specific content areas. In reading, this would reading methods. You have strategies for fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, etc.(d) and knowledge of learners and learning. You know how humans learn and develop. This is the ed psych stuff – which is the basis of all things. To move from novice to expert is a rather simple thing. Simply increase knowledge in all four areas. It’s not that complicated.
There are two basic approaches to literacy instruction for students in the early grades: a skills-based, Humpty-Dumptian approach and a child-centered, meaning-based approach. Both approaches involve explicit skills instruction. The difference is not in the ‘what’ of explicit skills instruction; rather, it’s the ‘how’, and the ‘how much’ of explicit skills instruction.
I’ve been blocked from posting comments on some literacy Facebook groups and other websites related to reading instruction. They don’t want my words to appear on their pages. I had the temerity to post thoughts with which they disagree. Imagine that. I had an idea that was a bit different than theirs. As a matter of fact, it pointed out some of the possible science of reading shortcomings. They would have none of that. They need to protect their members. But for any field to evolve, it needs to encounter new ideas. The field of literacy education will evolve only to the extent that we are able to engage in civil discourse and respectful academic dialogue. My Facebook page welcomes all thoughts: https://www.facebook.com/readingdisabilities
If you are going to embrace the science of reading, you can’t be just a little bit SOR. You can’t be partial SOR, or somewhat SOR. You can’t be semi-science of reading. If you are going to be a SOR advocate, you must embrace and apply SOR principles completely and consistently. In other words, if you are for the SOR and support related legislation, then you would use the same SOR principles to identify the reading problem, the cause of reading problems, and possible solutions to the reading problem.
In order to understand the science of reading, and how this term is misused, we must first get a better handle on science. I will cover some of the basics and end with a description of 7 questionable claims, based on I-think-isms, often brought up by Science of Reading advocates.
Despite having the word “science” in their title, the ideas put forth by the Science of Reading are not grounded in science at all, but in pseudo-science, I-think-isms, and anecdotal evidence. In fact, they are promoting an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and beliefs. Hence, the SOR would be more accurately named, the Ideology of Reading. What the SOR promotes is based far more on a reading belief system than reading science. Real science puts forth conclusions and recommendations based on a wide body of research. An ideology puts forth a dogma based on a very narrow range of data that must be adhered to.
This podcast explains what reading science is, how data collected from research studies are used to create theory, how theories are used to inform practice, and how one should used research to inform policy, practices, and programs.
In this podcast, I offer a definition of reading science that I got from an article written by Tim Shanahan. And since the Science of Reading clown club seems so enamored with phonics, we'll look at what the National Reading Panel Report actually says about phonics and balanced reading instruction. Spoiler alert: heads will explode.
Comprehension means total or complete. In defining comprehensive reading instruction, I will rely heavily on data from the NRP report. I would encourage all to read it. Not the executive summary, but the actual report. The five pillars of reading instruction are usually attributed to this report. However, to be comprehensive, a reading program needs to include 10 pillars. These are described here.
A variety of research studies conducted over the years have shown that of all the variables impacting the quality of teaching and the amount of learning that goes on in the classroom, the most significant variable is . . . the teacher. Yet, we underpay, undervalue, and disempower this most significant of significant variables and expect them to come back year after year because they “love” kids.
Is there a teacher shortage? Yup. But even worse, there’s an excellent teacher shortage. In this podcast, I address 10 factors that, if addressed, would alleviate both the teacher shortage and the excellent teacher shortage.
The essence of science is this: you ask a question and then collect data to answer that question. That is science. It’s a process. It’s a verb. To science.
With science, the data can’t just be collected higgily-piggily. There must be an approved method and that method must be systematic. There are many systematic methods that can be used to collect the data used to answer questions. And there are many types of data to collect. Hence, there is no single scientific method; rather, there are methods of science.
An important distinction to be made between science and pseudo-science:
Science – asks a question and then collects data to answer the question.
Pseudo-science starts with the answer, and then collects data to support that answer.
Tim Shanahan, Louisa Moats, Linnea Ehri, Wilson Reading Systems, Orton-Gillingham profiteers, SOR advocates, the International Dyslexia Association, and other plucky little phonics penguins are advocating that we teach children to read by guessing at words. Their skills-first approach to reading instruction is based on the phonological processing model. Sometimes called the simple view of reading, this model defines reading as a combination of decoding (sounding out words) and listening comprehension. Essentially, you sound out words and listen to the speech in the head
If you come to a word you don’t recognize, students are taught to put sounds to each of the letters, then put all the sounds together, then guess what the word is based on the sounds. This is nothing more than a grapheme-phoneme word-guessing game. We’ve got to put a stop to this horrible, horrible travesty of reading instruction.
The language arts is the study of grammar, punctuation, composition, spelling, and speech that’s usually taught as a single subject in elementary and middle school. This chapter is not about this. I’m taking a bit of a different approach. This podcast is about language art (emphasis on ‘language’). Language art is art that uses language to create an aesthetic response. It is the act of putting words together in certain ways to create a certain effect.
comedy monologs
poems
creative fictions
personal essays
novels/novellas
twitter stories
letters
song lyrics
video writing
creative fictions
autobiographies
memoirs
greeting cards
comic strips
comic books
podcasts
movie and tv scripts
plays
speeches
short stories
blogs
column writing
flash fiction (micro fiction)
rap
The impact of academic standards on students’ ability to write is questionable. Some believe that they impede more than enhance effective writing instruction. However, academic standards are part of our current educational life, thus this podcast I will (a) present some ideas for evaluating and assessing academic standards related to writing and (b) describe how you might pragmatically document students’ mastery of them.
We will start by defining our terms. An academic standard defines what you want students to know or be able to do in a general sense.
Benchmarks in education are the products or performances used to determine if students have met a standard. Benchmarks must be measurable or observable. This means it could be a student product found in a portfolio or a measure of that product using a checklist or rubric. Benchmarks are used to help you meet the standard and to document that the standard is being met.
The purpose of this podcast is to provide an overview of portfolios, checklists, and anecdotal records used to document students' growth as writers. These are some healthy alternatives to standardized tests, writing tests, and rubrics. Six points:
-
To be of use; however, these healthy alternative assessment strategies must reflect your values, philosophy, teaching style, and students (Calkins, 1994). In other words, your system needs to be yours. You can’t assess effectively using somebody else’s system. Thus, I will present some simple ideas here with the expectation that you will discuss them with your colleagues and use them to develop your own assessment system.
-
Your assessment system is not a permanent entity. Expect that it will evolve and change over time as you get more knowledge and experience.
-
An effective assessment system utilizes multiple forms of assessment. Include multiple kinds of data. No single assessment strategy should be used exclusively.
-
Big picture – The role of a parent and teacher is to become obsolete. You want to prepare students for the world they will encounter such that you are no longer needed. Similarly, the role of good assessment is to become obsolete – to prepare students to evaluate their own work. Thus, an important part of assessment is to teach students how to assess their own work (Graves, 1992).
-
Students should be involved in the assessment process. It should be something students do, not just something that’s done to them (see below).
Why do we assess? For what purpose? In terms of writing, I hope the answer is this: We assess so that we can help students become better writers. If not, we’re wasting our time. We assess to determine strengths to build upon and weaknesses to address. We assess to document growth. But ultimately, we assess to find out what we can do to help students become better writers.
However, too often assessment is used to “hold teachers accountable”. Ugh. Why is it that some groups continue this war against teachers and insist on the de-professionalization of education? Hold teachers accountable? We want intelligent, creative teachers to enter the field – but then we treat them like young, way-ward adolescents. We don’t trust them. We think we need to hold them accountable. We tell them what they must teach and how they must teach it. We assign standards and measures that must be used. Maybe we should give them a curfew as well. That’s it, let’s give all teachers a curfew and a mandatory bedtime – and restrict their TV watching and phone access if test scores fall below a certain percentage. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Certainly.
However, what happens when groups continually try to hold teachers accountable? Teachers teach to the accountability measure. In other words, they teach to the test. I mean, who wouldn’t? The result of this accountability nonsense is that instead of testing what is taught, teachers teach what is tested. This is called ass-backwards in some circles. Utter clownery in other circles. With such ass-backward clownery, the curriculum becomes narrowed, focusing only on that which can be measured and quantified by an external entity
This podcast will clarify a couple of un-understandings related to whole language reading instruction:
(1) Cueing is NOT an approach to reading instruction.
(2) We do NOT teach children to guess as words.
(3) Tinfoil hats do NOT keep the FBI from reading your mind.
The Four Nonsensical Statements Related to Whole Language:
(1) Whole language has been debunked. Nope. Hasn't happened. If so, send me a research study. Not data. Not something somebody else has said, but a research study published in a peer-reviewed academic journal debunking whole language.
(2) Phonics is more effective than whole language. That's like saying long division is more effective than mathematics. Phonics is something that’s taught. It’s not a method or an approach. Whole language is an understanding of the reading process and how the brain creates meaning with print.
(3) Whole language teachers don’t teach phonics. They do. It’s not the ‘what’ but the ‘how’ and the ‘how much” of phonics in which we differ from our skills-first brothers and sisters.
(4) Whole language teachers teach children to guess at words. Wrong. They do not. Developing students’ ability to use semantics, grammar and word order, background information, along with letter clues to recognize words does not mean that we teach children to guess at words.
During the process of writing, students are taught if they don’t know how to spell a word, they should give it their best shot, or use enough letters to temporarily hold the idea until they come back and edit the piece. This is called temporary spelling. This is done so as not to ruin the flow of the writing. This enables students to focus on the higher-order thinking involved in the composing process. Also, young children are able to write before they have mastered conventional forms of spelling. And as described many placed in this book, editing for spelling as well as grammar and punctuation is step four of the five-step writing process.
Traditional grammar instruction takes an isolated approach. It describes the rules for conjugating verbs, un-dangling participles, and coordinating conjunctions. This is done in isolation, apart from real writing and speaking. This approach may be effective for completing grammar worksheets, but it does not address the process of communicating effectively. In other words, teaching grammar instruction apart from real writing does little to enhance the quality of students’ writing. Also, there is very little transfer into authentic writing and speaking.
Instead, the rules of grammar should be taught in the context of students’ own writing. This is called an embedded approach. This is more impactful on students’ ability to use grammar correctly than teaching them in isolation, and it doesn’t get in the way of their real writing.
Chapter 1 - In which a nanny goat sings. Andy experiences an emotional trifecta: fear, shame, and disgust. He also discovers the time travel wires in his brain.
In this podcast, I examine (a) Ken Goodman, (b) penguins, (c) the psycholinguistic guessing game, (d) Emily Hanford, (e) American Public Media, (f) some flawed ideas about reading instruction, and (d) some flawed ideas about flawed ideas.
This current podcast looks at another un-understanding that has been fabricated out of tiny bits of ignorance, misconceptions, and intellectual sloth. This is the fallacy that whole language has somehow been debunked … that whole language is a failure … that research has proven whole language to be ineffective … I would again respond: nonsense, twaddle, and poppycock. So much nonsense, twaddle, and poppycock to address – Where does one begin? That perhaps would have been a good name for this series.
In this podcast, I will first do a bit de-debunking of the great un-understanding related to whole language. Then I will provide a bit of information that might help to understand what whole language actually is.
This current podcast looks at another un-understanding that has been fabricated out of tiny bits of ignorance, misconceptions, and intellectual sloth. This is the fallacy that whole language has somehow been debunked … that whole language is a failure … that research has proven whole language to be ineffective … I would respond: nonsense, twaddle, and poppycock. So much nonsense, twaddle, and poppycock.
In this podcast, I will first do a bit of de-debunking of the great un-understanding related to whole language. Then I will provide a bit of information that might help to understand what whole language actually is.
The premise that schools are failing, teachers are doing a horrible job, and professors like me are ruining America and sending our economy into decline, is a myth perpetuated by those with political and for-profit agendas. If you think I'm wrong, show me some research-based data showing said decline and some isolated variables. Show me some valid, reliable, comparable data, collected over time, that shows our schools are failing and that teachers are doing a horrible job. Give me some solid data that indicates that our schools are worse than they were 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago. That data should not be based on your selected memory of what you think schools were like once upon a time, but some solid data with appropriate sample sizes, that represent the population to which you are seeking to generalize. As well, that data should not be cherry-picked to support your predetermined belief. Causality should not be assigned to whatever issue you seem to take exception with.
This podcast describes the type of literacy learning environments and instruction that enable young children to develop their full writing potential. In a good literacy learning environment there is (a) lots of talk, (b) lots of writing, and (c) lots of reading. There is also direct and systematic instruction done in the context of authentic writing.
In the usual practice of academia, research is used to create theories. Theories are then used to explain a set of facts and to understand phenomena. And as new data is encountered and as old theories become obsolete, these theories either evolve or are they’re replaced by new theories. This is the natural way of things. All along the way, there is plenty of rigorous academic debate and respectful discourse over the research conducted and the application of theories.
However, as I write this, the Science of Reading Clown Club is doing what any clown club would do when they can’t win an argument based on merits; they are lobbying state legislatures to force teacher preparation programs at all colleges and universities in the state of Minnesota to include Clown Club principles in their curriculum.
The Science of Reading clown Club is an interesting bit of paradox that appears to be based on a misunderstanding of both science and reading.
Writing emerges naturally as children are exposed to real-life writing, as they use writing for real-life experiences, and as other humans listen and respond to their ideas. The podcast explains.
In reviewing some schools’ RTI plans, a standardized reading achievement test is used as a screening device. Students are put in Tiers I, II, or III reading intervention groups based on their percentile ranking on standardized tests. For example, if you’re in the 10th percentile or below, you go to Tier III, the 40th percentile or below you go to Tier II, and the 60th percentile or below you go to Tier I.
When you live in the world of standardized tests and percentile rankings, there is a normal distribution of scores that is beautifully displayed in the bell-shaped curve. Here, half the population is reading below average. That’s called a normal population or a normal distribution of scores. But if everybody was reading above average, eventually average would become below average and above average would become average, and below average would become really below average. In a normal distribution of scores, half the students in a school should score below average. That’s called normal. That doesn’t mean that we don’t give each and every student the help they need so that they’re reading, writing, and doing math at their very best. We want all students to achieve grade-level standards. It is an excellent goal, but at the same time, it’s an unrealistic goal.
A learning disability only exists within a school environment. Outside the narrow confines of school, I’ve seen many with identified learning disabilities being highly successful in their professional and personal lives. This was only after shaking off the stigma of the label that had been given to them by the educational system. How dare we define anybody’s potential. What is defined as a learning disability is really an educational disability. How about if we significantly down-size the special education system, create smaller class sizes, provide better working conditions, and give teachers the professional development opportunities they need to be able to include inclusive learning environments with differentiated instruction
MTSS or Multi-tiered systems of support claims to be based on scientific research and use only evidence-based practices. MTSS originated in the swamps of Special Ed World. PBIS (positive behavioral interventions and supports) and ABA (applied behavioral analysis) are used with MTSS to make some behaviors disappear and others appeart. Magic. Claims are made that these are “evidence-based”.
Can a practice really be said to be evidence-based if it only looks at a certain type of evidence? Can it really be scientifically-based reading research if only certain methods are allowed to ask certain types of questions? And that’s the whole problem with the liturgical chants of “evidence” and “evidence-based” and “scientifically-based research” made by the Science of Reading Comedy Club to support a litany of practice taken from their direct-instruction Holy Book.
That’s the whole problem in Special Ed World with their declaration of faith stating that only practices used to manipulate and control behavior are “evidence-based”. These represent a simplistic understanding of research in the social sciences. Within Special Ed World and the Science of Reading Comedy Club, and even the US Department of Education, controlled experimental studies (CES) are thought to be the only way of establishing causal relationships, that one thing causes the other thing to happen.
In the education world, the term “evidence-based” is often thrown around carelessly and used to end the discussion. But the question I would posit (and pardon me for being so inquisitive) is this: When you say a practice or strategy is “evidence-based” have you actually looked at the evidence of the evidence-base? Or are you just using the term because you heard somebody else use it?
There’s a difference between collecting data and research. While the research process includes data collection, collecting data is not research. The research process includes data. But collecting data is not research. In the world of science and academia, research is not research unless and until it has been subjected to blind peer review. Collecting data is not research. Confusing data with research is a common practice in the for-profit realm. Confusing data with research is a common practice with those who have a political or ideological agenda. Confusing data with research is a common practice those outside of education.
When people discover I have a religious view that is not in alignment with their own, there are three things that often happen. First, they try to convince you of the wrongness of their view and the rightness of their own. Second, they call you names. And third, they pray for you. This podcast focuses on the third. And yes, I realize I am sometimes guilty of one and two above.
When people realize I have a different perspective on reading instruction, politics, or religion, two things sometimes happen. First, they try to convince you of your wrongness and get you to be more aligned with their own views. And second, they sometimes use labels and call you names. The third thing only happens with religion - they pray for you.
The National Reading Panel identified 5 pillars of good reading instruction. They were a bit misguided in their methodology. As a result, their 5 pillars are 5 pillars short. This podcast describes the 10 pillars of good reading instruction
This is the introduction to my book, 'Coming Out of a Different Sort of Closet Living With Mental Health Issues'. Here I introduce myself along with an unconscious projection named, Gerry. This is a different sort of podcast for me. If you would my to continue along this line, please send me an email: andrew.axe.johnson@gmail.com
-
Literacy standards (like the CCSS) should not be designed by literacy amateurs (as literacy standards most often are). There are some things that should be left to educational professionals (like classroom teachers).
-
Expository text calls for an efferent response. Narrative text calls for an aesthetic response.
-
In our approaches to literacy instruction, we must always focus on real-world macro goals for reading vs. artificial micro-goals. When reading narrative text, the macro goal is for students to be able to read and enjoy the story. When reading expository text, the macro goal is for students to read and understand (construct knowledge with) the text.
In being and becoming teachers of writing we must allow spaces for bad teaching to occur. This doesn’t mean I’m advocating bad teaching. But if you take risks and try new things, you are bound to have lessons that don’t go just the way you would have liked. Risks and experimentation are essential components of growth and evolution. Hence, if you’ve never had a bad lesson, you haven’t tried enough new things. If you’ve never failed, it means you’ve been clinging too tightly to the outline. Occasional teaching failure is an important part of being and becoming a master teacher.
As teachers and as human beings living on the good planet earth, we are not defined by our success, rather, by how we address our failures. A successful teacher and human is not failure-free. A successful teacher and human is failure-overcoming.
When writing the draft, the goal is to spew. Open the spigot. Let the ideas flow. This is something you will continually need to remind your students to do. Get the ideas out before you lose them. There will be plenty of time to go back and rearrange, shape, and even throw them out later. For now, get them out. The specific steps for drafting are listed here:
Steps for drafting
-
Don’t think
-
Get it out
-
Don’t think some more
-
Get it out some more
-
Repeat as necessary
Garbage is good when drafting. Rubbish is to be celebrated. Nonsense is to be commemorated. Mishmash, drivel, trash, twaddle, hodgepodge, and poppycock are all joys to behold when writing the draft. In fact, you cannot write well if you’re not willing to first write poorly. When drafting, bad writing is good, and good writing is bad.
Across the country, states are considering a Republican-based education bill promoted as the “Parents Bill of Rights”. This bill would promote “curriculum transparency”, allowing parents to review school curriculum “without cost and immediately upon request, and add a notice requirement that requires schools to make “reasonable arrangements” for alternative instruction when families object to what is being taught.
This transparency bill is a relic from the 50s that belongs there. Joe McCarthy is dead. The Berlin wall has been taken down. Elvis Pressley left the building. We must educate our children today to live in the world of the future not in a world of the past. To enable them to succeed and thrive in the increasingly diverse and interconnected global community of tomorrow we must ensure that they have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to do so. However, the “Parents Bill of Rights” impedes our ability to do so. It would allow a small army of the angry to pick what they consider to be the lice off the educational monkey. This will result in a shallow, disjointed curriculum for the rest of us that creates a distorted view of the world.
To teach authentically is to teach from one’s philosophy. You align your actions with your values and your beliefs. However, as holistic educators, we’re sometimes asked to adopt philosophies to which we do not ascribe or to use methods that are not consistent with our philosophic framework. To teach from another’s philosophy is to become a dancing monkey. I am not a dancing monkey. Dancing monkeys are not good for education
In this podcast, I hope to provide a sense of what holistic education is or might be and to examine how it could be used to bring education to a higher place. It’s a concept that doesn’t easily fit onto a bumper sticker. This podcast may also enable you to describe where you are at in your journey as a teacher and to help others understand holistic education. And maybe, perhaps maybe, the ideas presented here will keep you from becoming a dancing monkey.
The number monkeys want to use standardized tests and a business paradigm to "fix" education. However, if we want fundamental change in the quality of education, then we must focus on the quality of education. We need to take a qualitative look at the teaching methodologies and curriculum that are used in schools and classrooms and make changes in the way we do education. All the number-monkeying in the world does nothing to address the quality of education. It does not change how we go about the business of educating our children. Instead, it promotes a test-and-measure mentality that serves only to create winners and losers.
This podcast examines teacher writing prompts. Writing prompts should not be relied upon; however, they can be an effective tool to use occasionally. However, keep in mind that the ultimate goal of a good writing teacher is to be prompt-free. As well, there are good writing prompts and not-good writing prompts. This podcast looks at each..
Teachers exist in a school context which exists within a systems context. A system is an interacting and interdependent set of elements working together to form a unified whole. To fully understand the obstacles teachers face and why some are leaving education, one must first understand the system in which they exist. Arthur Combs (1999) described two common types of systems used in organizations: top-down closed systems and person-centered open systems. This podcast describes a person-centered open system.
Teachers exist in a school context which exists within a systems context. A system is an interacting and interdependent set of elements working together to form a unified whole. To fully understand the obstacles teachers face and why some are leaving education, one must first understand the system in which they exist. Arthur Combs (1999) described two common types of systems used in organizations: top-down closed systems and person-centered open systems. This podcast describes the top-down closed system.
I am writing a book about teaching writing. This book is based on the premise that human beings have an innate desire to communicate with other human beings. They naturally want the ideas to leak out of their head. Humans have an inherent inclination to express themselves and to share their ideas and experiences with other humans. Good writing instruction is built upon this natural inclination. Ineffective (bad) writing instruction stymies this natural impulse. And if students have been stymied for years, it may take a bit of work to un-stymie them. This podcast addresses the “un-stymie-i-zation” process.
So why should educators be concerned about educational research? What relevance does it have to our everyday practice?
Educational research is used to create the theories upon which we design educational policies and practices. Theories help to organize relevant empirical facts (empirical means they can be observed or measured) in order to create a context for understanding phenomena. Sometimes people try to dismiss an idea or practice with which they do not agree by saying it is just a bunch of theory, meaning I guess that the theoretical realm is somehow far removed from the practical realm, perhaps even having a different set of laws that govern it. But this would be a misunderstanding of what a theory is.
A theory is a way to explain a set of facts. Put another way, if reality were a dot-to-dot picture, a theory would be a way to connect a set of data dots (see Figure 1.2.) However, varying theories connect different data dots in different ways resulting in a wide variety of pictures and practices. Thus, varying theoretical perspectives, while based on a set of empirical data, can often advocate different practices or practical notions. An example would be behavioral learning theory and cognitive learning theory, both of which are based on solid empirical evidence.
• Educational research is used to create the theories that are used to design educational policies and practices.
• A theory is a way of explaining a set of facts.
• A hypothesis is an untested conjecture.
• Research-based theory can be used to justify practices or policies.
• Educational research helps teachers and school administrators to make good decisions.
Sigmund Freud (1856 to 1939) is considered to be one of the pioneers of modern psychology. His theory of personality states that (a) the human psyche (personality) has more than one aspect (see below) and (b) the unconscious mind can be highly influential in directing human behavior. His contribution to the field of psychology was in describing how impulses and ideas contained in the unconscious were sometimes blocked from becoming conscious (Tuckett, 2019). These blocks contributed to the suffering of his patients.
It is recognized that his ideas related to the impact of childhood sexuality on human development and personality are uncomfortable for many. These are not widely adopted today. But many of his other ideas still contribute to our understanding of the human entity. Thus, any book about understanding human beings should include some of Freud’s ideas.
There are three things to keep in mind when evaluating Freud’s theory of personality. First, theories are not meant to be permanent. Theories, by their very nature, are temporary structures used to explain a set of facts and to understand phenomena. As the facts change, the theories continue to evolve until they eventually become obsolete and are replaced by new theories. Second, Freud’s thinking kept evolving throughout his lifetime. If he were still alive today it is most likely that his thinking would be much different than it was in the early 1900s. And third, theories (like Freud’s) do not predict human behavior; they help us understand human behavior.
Like Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers was a humanistic psychologist who also described humans as naturally good and evolving entities. He pioneered a client-centered approach to psychotherapy that translated directly into a student-centered approach to teaching. This chapter describes some of his seminal ideas as they relate to human growth, teaching, and being a human being. As you listen to this podcoast you will notice that these ideas are interconnected such that the borders between teaching and psychology are often indistinguishable. This is as it should be. Rogers believed that teaching, psychotherapy, and being a fully functioning person all came from the same place
Self-actualization is the term used to describe the natural unfolding and realization of one’s full potential. Put another way, within every acorn there is a mighty oak tree. To actualize is to enable the taproot to sprout from the acorn and the seedling to come forth and begin to grow to be the oak tree. Self-actualization is when the acorn recognizes the oak tree within, embraces oak-tree-ness, and begins the journey toward being and becoming an oak tree. This podcast describes some of the conditions necessary to enable students to self-actualize.
At one time it was thought that smaller class sizes and additional adult resources found in a segregated special education classroom would enable teachers here to provide individualized instruction that would meet the special needs of each student. It was thought as well that this would lead to improved learning outcomes for these students. This is not the case. It turns out that educational outcomes are more often diminished rather than enhanced in segregated settings. This is because students in segregated special education settings frequently do not receive the same quality of education as students in a general education classroom. Also, the instruction here often is neither individualized nor appropriate.
This podcast further explores problems in Special Ed World. Addressed here: (a) the medical model used to understand "disabilities", (b) standardized instruction, (c) segregated instructional settings, and (d) systemic racism.
Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) was among the earliest pioneers in humanistic psychology (sometimes referred to as growth psychology or third wave psychology). This movement begin to emerge in the 1950’s in response to the idea that humans were merely creatures driven by their subconscious (Sigmund Freud and the psychoanalytic model), or were organisms conditioned to respond to internal and external stimuli (B.F. Skinner and the behaviorist model). Instead, Maslow (as well as Carl Rogers Erik Erikson and Maria Montessori) saw humans as having a natural impulse toward fullness, health, healing, and growth (Maslow, 1968). The three psychological concepts for which Maslow is most highly identified are: (a) hierarchical structure of motivation, (b) self-actualization, and (c) peak experiences. This podcast address his theory of motivation
I used to describe special education as a field – as in “the field of special education.” And indeed, it used to be a field. You can see this field when reading articles from the major special education academic journals in the 1990s and early 2000s. It was a field. Not a farmer’s field but a field in the wild. This kind of field is a beautiful place. It is an ecosystem, with birds, other animals, and a wide variety of plant life. And a field in the wild is not contained. It changes over time as new seeds, plant life, and animals interact with it. The edges of the field evolve and change over time.
. But special education is not a field anymore; rather, it has become a silo.
A silo is a container. It contains silage. Silage is a type of fodder given to cattle and sheep during the winter when grazing is not possible. It is made from grass, corn (maize) oats, hay, and other types of foliage that has been cut up into little parts. This vegetative matter is put in the large, vertical tube known as a silo, compressed to get all the oxygen out then allowed to ferment. The result is a form of pickled pasture matter that is all jumbled up and all looks the same when it comes out. Cows and sheep eat it without question
:n our current educational system, standardized tests are used to assess the quality of the student-products as they move along the 13-year conveyor belt within the education factories commonly referred to as schools. Students whose test scores fall below a certain percentile ranking are thought to have a disability. Additional standardized tests are then given by standardized testing experts to confirm and diagnose the cause of the disability. Very much like a disease, a “special” standardized treatment is then prescribed for this disability.
These students are then sent off to Special Ed World. This is a purgatorial “special” place apart from the general education classroom where students are given the prescribed special treatment by special treatment experts. In the segregated setting of Special Ed World, the special treatment experts implement the special treatment with fidelity. However, one of the many problems with Special Ed World as currently configured is that once students become entangled in the special education machinery, they are lost forever. They rarely return.
This podcast examines three interconnecting elements related to reading instruction in Special Ed World: (a) data-resistant theoretical constructs, (b) paradigmatic parochialism regarding what is considered “scientifically-based” research, and (dd manipulative approaches to teaching.
Fast-Reading Freddy was a second-grade student. His father contacted me because, according to him, his son had reading problems. The scores on reading achievement tests were below grade level. His father indicated that he was going to get him tested for dyslexia. Knowing the devasting impact that such tests and labels can have, and the great amount of nothingness that such tests produce, I told his father I wanted to listen to Freddy read before any testing was done. This is the story of what I found.
The podcast examines the big, big picture related to reading instruction. Four big ideas are presented here:
1. A reading teacher’s number one job should be to help children fall in love with books.
2. Students need reading practice
3. Have good books available.
4. Stop the search for magical elixirs.
One cause of ineffective reading instruction is an un-understanding of how the brain creates meaning with print. The other is testing madness. The number monkeys have taken over education! If we can’t put a number to a thing, it is thought not to exist.
I have yet to come across a standardized test that taught a child to read. Despite all the colorful graphs and charts, I have yet to encounter a test that tells me exactly what I should do on Monday morning.They simply tell me how far away from average a kid is.
Eye movement research tells us much about reading and the reading process. This type of research looks at eye movement as people are engaged in authentic reading activities (reading passages vs. individual words). Eye movement research shows that our eyeballs do not move in a nice, straight, orderly line from left to right. Also, our eyeballs skip over 40% of the words while reading.
When students make a mistake or miscue during oral reading, our first impulse is to jump in and correct the mistake. We need to stop doing this. This podcast explains why. The first thing we do when students stop because they don't recognize a word is to tell them to "sound it out". We also need to stop doing this. This podcast explains why.
One cause of ineffective reading instruction is the lack of understanding related to the reading process. More specifically, inaccurate information about how the brain creates meaning with print. Old ideas get in the way of new understandings. Un-understandings also get in the way of new understandings.
The traditional view of the scientific process. The traditional view of the scientific process goes something like this. You get two groups. You measure them before the study begins. You do something to one group and you don’t do something to the other. You control everything else so that the two groups are as similar as possible. Then after a bit, you measure them to see if there are differences between the two groups. [slide]. If there are, you can say that the thing you did to the one group was the cause of the difference.
Many think of this as THEE scientific method. This is often called controlled experimental research (CER) or controlled experimental studies (CES). You control all the variables except for one (the treatment or independent variable) in order to find out if something was the cause of something else. However, one big idea I would hope you would take with you is this:
1. There is no such thing as THEE scientific method. Rather, there are methods of science. CER is only one of many methods of science. To insist that this is the only method of science that can be used to understand reading and reading instruction is to insist that we look at reading reality through a tube. Our view and thus our understanding are greatly impeded. Yet this is exactly what the US Department of Education and other groups have done. They have insisted that the only knowledge that counts is that which is derived through controlled experiment research (CER). In reading, they call this scientifically based reading research (SBRR). But this insular view demonstrates a limited understanding of educational research. It insists that we look at reading reality through a very narrow peephole. There’s a lot of data being missed. And how could anything be truly scientific if it chooses to ignore a wealth of very important data.
This is the first in a two-part series looking at grammar instruction. Learning about grammar doesn’t have to be boring and meaningless. This podcast starts by dispelling some myths, otherwise known as silly grammar ideas. It ends by describing the four elements of effective skills instruction: (a) input and modeling, (b) guided practice, (c) independent practice, and (d) review
So why should educators be concerned about educational research? What relevance does it have to our everyday practice? We have all heard the common litany: “It’s just a bunch of theory. You can make research say anything you want. Ivory tower researchers don’t know what it’s like in the trenches. It doesn’t work that way in the real world.” This podcast explains what a theory is, how research-based theories can be used to make good educational decisions, and six common approaches to decision-making in schools.
This is an excerpt from my book: Johnson, A. (2016). 10 essential instructional elements for students with reading difficulties: A brain-friendly approach.
Phonemes are the smallest units of sound within spoken words. English has 41-44 phonemes. Phonemic awareness is the ability to notice, think about, and work with the individual sounds in spoken words. Phonemic awareness is one part of the whole literacy learning system. But not all children benefit from phonemic awareness activities. The rule of thumb is that phonemic awareness activities should generally be discontinued once children are reading comfortably at the 1st-grade level. Some students with severe reading difficulties in later grades benefit from having phonemic awareness activities that are part of their total reading program.
This is an excerpt from my book: Johnson, A. (2016). 10 essential instructional elements for students with reading difficulties: A brain-friendly approach. Corwin
The first podcast provides a sense of what effective literacy instruction might look like at the preschool and kindergarten (emergent) levels. The following podcast describes strategies for developing phonemic awareness.
A teacher’s prime directive is to help students learn or more accurately, to create the conditions whereby students are able to learn. So, what is learning? Learning is the process of acquiring new knowledge and skills. But simply having new knowledge and skills are of little value if they cannot be used. Thus, learning also involves the ability to use new knowledge and skills to solve problems or create products. However, learning also involves new insight. Thus, learning might also be said to include making new connections between pieces of knowledge or different experiences in order to bring about new understanding, new insight, or change.
All well and good, but what is the highest form of teaching?
The highest form of teaching is Teaching as transformation.
This view perceives teaching as creating conditions that have the potential to transform the learner on many different levels (cognitive, emotional, social, intuitive, creative, spiritual, and other). Transformational teaching invites both students and teachers to discover their full potential as learners, as members of society, and as human beings. The ultimate transformational goal is to become more nurturing human beings who are better able to perceive the interconnectedness of all human, plant, and animal life (Narve, 2001). Holistic education is an educational philosophy consistent with the transformative view (Miller, 1996). Learning is said to have occurred when these experiences elicit a transformation of consciousness that leads to a greater understanding of and care for self, others, and the environment. Academic achievement from this perspective is seen as discovering and developing your unique talents and capabilities to the fullest extent possible. Academic achievement also involves becoming aware of the multiple dimensions of self and expanding one’s consciousness.
It has been my experience that education is most effective when the prime directive is to do what Maria Montessori proposed in 1946, and that is to help each child discover and then release his or her full potential. The Indian philosopher, Krishnamurti proposed that education’s goal should be to free individuals from the illusion of one’s cultural conditioning so that they can think and value for themselves (Miller, 2001). Thomas Moore (1992), in The Seat of the Soul, recommends that schools strive to develop depth of feeling and imagination, instead of only focusing on knowledge and skills. I agree with each of these, and I would add that our schools should be vehicles for self-actualization. Self-actualization here is the state where one is able to accept and express one’s inner core and begin to actualize those capacities and potentialities found there
When we talk about critical race theory, our goal is not to win the argument. We’ve already done that. Our goal is change. And if change is not occurring, we must consider the causal factors. Now those who would use force to leverage change, simply think about where, how, and how much force to use. But that’s not really change. That’s compliance. We want change. Real change. Ideas cause change. Ideas ultimately cause real change. Ideas. Hence, we must consider the idea delivery system being used.
This podcast explores this question: Do you want to win the argument or do you want change? We've already won the argument, so let's focus on change. In doing so, we need to consider our idea-delivery system.
if you want to help students become better writers, you must teach them the process. The five-step writing process as described by Donald Graves (1983) has been around for a while. This podcast will expand on the brief outline of the five-step writing process, it will describe tips for teaching the 5-step writing process, and it will identify six types of writing that should be included in a writing curriculum.
Throughout my series of podcasts related to writing instruction you’ll encounter six reoccurring themes:
1. Everyone can write. Writing is creating meaning with print and sharing that meaning with others. Everyone can record or express an idea on paper (or computer). Young children may use more pictures and squiggly shapes than letters and words, but they are creating meaning with print and sharing their ideas.
2. Students need to be taught the writing process. The five-step writing process will be described in Chapter 1 and referenced through this book. Everyone can become better writers if they are taught the steps and follow the process. The process may look a bit different in first grade than it does in 12th grade, but there is a process, and it does produce better writers.
3. Students need opportunities to practice writing. You become a better tennis player by practicing. You become a better piano player by practicing. You become a writer by practicing. Like any skill, you need to do it a lot to get better at it. This means that teachers must provide ample opportunities to practice writing. Students should expect to write every day.
4. Students need to have authentic writing experiences. An inauthentic writing experience is when the teacher asks students to respond to an artificial writing prompt and the only response given is a grade, some edits, and a comment from the teacher. In contrast, an authentic writing experience is when students are recording, explaining, or describing their ideas for a real-life audience (often their peers). This makes their writing comes alive. It moves it from an abstract exercise to a real-life event. And when students are engaged in authentic writing experiences, you seldom have problems ‘motivating’ them to write. Again, humans have a natural inclination to communicate; to share their thoughts, experiences, perspectives, and emotions with others. When you tap into this natural inclination, writing instruction becomes effortless.
5. Students need responses. A response if much different from correction. A response is a reaction. Students need to see how their writing is playing in the heads of the reader. They need to know which parts work and which parts are a little fuzzy or could use some revising. They need responses from the teacher and their peers.
6. Every teacher can be an effective teacher of writing. There’s nothing magical or complicated about being and becoming a good teacher of writing. You simply need to understand the five-step writing process and have a few good strategies that you can adopt and adapt to fit your needs and teaching style. And that’s where I come in. Hence, this book.
• Students need their own writing topics. Students should be encouraged to express their thoughts and describe their experiences to the greatest extent possible. This is called authentic writing or authentic writing experiences. Not all the time, but much of the time. When I sit down to write a book or a journal article, nobody assigns me a topic. I get to write about what interests me. I get to research things about which I am curious. Research and writing seem effortless here. However, I’ve had experiences in which I’ve had to write a chapter, article, or report that I wasn’t really interested in writing. Writering is incredible difficult here. It seems as if I stare at my computer for hours and nothing comes out of my head.
• Students first need to write in order to learn how to write. Celebrate the idea in whatever form that idea takes. There are times and places to learn and become proficient in various writing forms and genre, including what Gloria Ladson-Billings (2017) refers to as the dominant academic language (DAL) or the culture of commerce and social advancement. However, learning and becoming proficient in one form will make it easier to learn and become proficient in another form.
• Students need to get real responses from real people. Sharing writing with others is what makes it come alive. She how people respond to your words gives you a sense of what is effective and what is not.
• Finally, keep the art in language arts. Again, art is not something beautiful; art is something beautifully expressed. Celebrate, in your writing instruction, the beauty of words.
Learning to write is a lot like learning to make raspberry jelly. You need to be shown the process, not just given a list of ingredients. Too often students are never taught the process used to create a finished written product. They are not shown the steps. This lack of instruction related to process is just as detrimental to jelly-making as it is to writing.
The test data didn't tell me the full story. Sally was a 1st grade girl with whom I was working last year during covid. I was doing online tutoring with kids. Before working with her, her parents sent me her test data. I read through them. There were fancy charts and colorful graphs that showed Sally’s scores on a whole array of meaningless reading subskill – They measured her distance from average. All this data really showed me was that Sally had trouble reading --- but we already knew this. Her parents knew this. Her teacher knew this. And Sally knew this. The numbers simply quantified what everybody already knew. And the testing made Sally feel more insecure about herself as a literate human being.
Five things cause ineffective reading instruction:
-
The myth of standardization.
-
Lack of understanding related to the reading process.
-
Teacher disempowerment.
-
Over-crowded classrooms.
-
Testing madness.
How is it possible that so many people believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election? How is it humanly possible? How is it possible that some still believe that getting vaccinated for COVID-19 is a bad thing? After all the information published, all the data available, how is it possible that there are people walking about who fervently believe such things? And I am not talking about just a few. Sadly, I am talking about a whole bunch of people.
This podcast examines the neurological basis of how it is that people can believe things that are so unbelievable.
This short podcast looks at language learning and the implications for reading instruction.
Language learning is a universal human function. People around the world, in different environments and with different abilities seem to acquire their primary language in essentially the same sequence and the same way. This tells us that humans are hard-wired to learn language in some form (Chomsky, 1968)
Four elements
There are four elements connected with language learning (Ormrod, Anderman, & Anderman, 2020):
• Semantics refers to the meaning. Children learn that certain sounds, symbols, or movements of a hand and facial gestures means something.
• Syntax refers to the rules for how the words, symbols, and movements are put together. For example, in human communication there is usually a thing word (noun) coupled with an action word (verb). Children learn that the types of words, the form of the word, and the order that they are used make a difference.
• Medium refers to the form the language takes. Children learn to produce certain sounds, symbols, or movements to communicate.
• Pragmatics is the context in which the communication takes place and the social rules around that communication. Children learn to communicate in different ways, in different contexts, with different people, and for different purposes.
Emotions can be better understood if viewed from an evolutionary perspective. Our current human emotions are a result of thousands of years of human evolution. They are part of our ever-evolving human brain. As stated above, they are a physiological response to some external stimuli that facilitated actions beneficial for the survival of the group or the individual. We have six basic emotions hardwired into our human brains: anger, fear, surprise, sadness (distress), happiness (joy), and disgust. Each of these served to enable the propagation of our species and the continued spreading of our genes in some fashion.
At their core, emotions are a physiological response to stimuli that enable humans to react to events of biological or individual significance. From an evolutionary perspective, these physiological responses promoted survival behavior of the individual or the group
This podcast is designed to help white people understand systemic racism, white guilt, shame, and the history of the United States of America. That's quite a lot for an 11-minute podcast -- but I think I pretty much cover it all.
This podcast is designed for white people. Full disclosure: I am a white man. It also describes just some of the basic elements of systemic racism. It also differentiates between the word "equality" and "equity".
Critical Race Theory has been much maligned, discounted, and discredited without fully understanding exactly what it is. It has been presented as a bad thing, a dangerous thing, a nefarious thing by conservative groups such as The American Experiment. Disinformation, misinformation, and distortion are used under the guise of patriotism and Christianity. What is presented as Critical Race Theory is not critical race theory at all. Groups like The American Experiment offer a distorted, cartoonish, and perverted view of Critical Race Theory. This short podcast describes what it is and what it is not.
Reading programs need to be balanced (Cunningham & Allington, 2007te). This means that it’s is not all just one thing (like all phonics instruction, or all reading, or all writing, or all anything). Instead, there’s a little bit of this and a little bit of that. You may not have noticed, but children are not standardized products. Children learn differently, in different ways, and at different rates. Thus, in learning to read, some children need a little more of one thing while others need bit more of another thing. Trying to push all children through the same reading program will result in the slowed growth of some and the frustration of others. This practice is called teaching the program and not children. Effective teachers teach children. Factory workers teach the program. Whenever possible, strive to be a teacher, not a factory worker.
One of the ideas for getting more teachers of color into the classroom has been to look at fast-track alternative teacher preparation programs such as Teach for America. These kinds of programs are usually based on the spaghetti model: Throw enough spaghetti on the wall and some of it will stick. In other words - throw a bunch of low-paid, poorly prepared teachers into the classroom and some will eventually stick around, making it to a second year.
Let me ask you this:Would you go to a fast-track dentist? What about a dentist who was part of a Dentists for America program? Most would say no. We expect a certain level of training and expertise from those in whom we entrust with the care of our teeth. Why would we think it appropriate to expect anything less of those who we entrust with the care and education of our children?
Problem: Only 16% of the US teacher force are teachers of color. This is a problem.
On Saturday, May 1st, 2021 a group of teachers, teacher educators, administrators, and others from around the state of Minnesota and three other states met for conversation. The purpose was to address the problem related to the lack of teachers of color in our classrooms in Minnesota and around the country. Three questions were used to initiate this conversation:
-
What are the filters that keep students of color from entering teacher preparation programs?
-
What are the filters that keep students of color from completing teacher preparation programs?
-
What can we do?
The old, weekly spelling tests just don’t work. I have found no research to indicate that they do anything to improve students' ability to spell under real-life writing conditions. Word Class is a self-selected approach to spelling instruction that meets the needs of spellers at all ability levels. Here students select the words they wish to study each week. This podcast describes a variety of activities that can be used with word class.
Reading programs need to be balanced. This means that it’s is not all just one thing (like all phonics instruction, or all reading, or all writing, or all anything). Instead, there’s a little bit of this and a little bit of that. You may not have noticed, but children are not standardized products. Children learn differently, in different ways, and at different rates. Thus, in learning to read, some children need a little more of one thing while others need bit more of another thing. Trying to push all children through the same reading program will result in the slowed growth of some and the frustration of others. This practice is called teaching the program and not children. Effective teachers teach children. Factory workers teach the program. Whenever possible, strive to be a teacher, not a factory worker.
Weekly spelling tests have been the staple of elementary education for the last 100 years. Here students memorize a list of words each week and then take a test on Friday. Tests are corrected, scores are taken, and one is deemed either a good spelling or not good speller. This would be a great way to teach spelling except for one thing: it’s not very effective. Studying a list of words out of any meaningful context has minimal effect in helping to develop students’ spelling proficiency; and worse, they keep students away from real writing experiences. This podcast describes a better way to help students learn how to spell correctly in authentic writing conditions.
Editing checklists and peer editing tables are great ways to reinforce grammar skills - and they also provide the structure necessary for students to successfully edit their papers.
Listed below are seven simple tips for helping students to develop an awareness of grammar in their speaking and writing.
1. Use lots of real writing. Authentic writing with feedback and response from classmates and teachers is most effective in developing grammar awareness. Feedback, versus just correct mistakes, makes the writing come alive.
2. Use worksheets judiciously. There’s nothing wrong with worksheets. They’re tools; however, like any tool, their effectiveness is determined by how they’re used. Whenever possible, have students work in pairs to complete these. That way they hear the thought process of others. Remember, the goal is learning and writing, not completing a worksheet and getting a score to record.
3. Keep skills instruction brief and quickly paced. Students need some explicit instruction related to grammar. That is, they need to be told exactly what a noun, or incomplete sentence is (see Appendix A for the basic grammar rules). But more of something doesn’t mean more learning. Grammar learning is most effective when it is brief and in the context of students'wrwr real writing.
4. Use posters and bulletin boards as reminders.
5. Find ways to get students talking about their writing (peer group editing is one way to do this).
6. Promote voluntary reading. Wide reading is the cure for almost everything literary.
7. Become aware of your own grammar as you are speaking and writing
learning about grammar doesn’t have to be boring and meaningless. This chapter starts by dispelling some myths, otherwise known as silly grammar ideas. It then describes three approaches to grammar instruction
This question often arises: Should you insist on correct spelling when children are getting their initial ideas on paper? Short answer: no.
• Real writers edit last. There’s a time and a place to look at spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors: in the editing stage (the 5-step writing process is be described below). We want students to view their writing as a way to capture and express their ideas. Overemphasizing conventional spelling in the beginning stages can inhibit writing. This reflects what happens in the real world where initial drafts are messy things with lots of spelling and grammar errors. In the writing my books, my initial drafts have lots of errors (less so because I have grammar and spell check). The point is that we should treat our students just as real writers are treated. Real writers have messy first drafts and revisions. They edit during the final phases of their writing
How much talking do you think young children would do if we corrected them after every utterance? What if we insisted that they pronounce every word perfectly and used only correct grammar as they were learning to speak? What if we assigned children their speaking topics and then corrected and evaluated their speaking instead of responding to their ideas? What do you think would happen? Well I can tell you: We’d create a generation of insecure, semi-psychotic mutes.
And yet, this is what often happens when children are first learning to use the medium of writing as a vehicle for expressing their ideas. Well-meaning but ill-informed teachers or parents often insist that children’s writing always be grammatically correct and error free as soon as it hits the paper. This is a good way to create reluctant non-writers. Just like learning to speak, students’ ability to write develops best by sharing real ideas and getting real responses (vs. constant correction) from adults and other students. Don’t get me wrong here: Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are important, but these things are not writing. Writing is having ideas, organizing ideas, and communicating ideas. In this sense, grammar, spelling, and punctuation are a means to an end, but they are not ends by themselves.
all language processes are connected (reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking). Each language enhances students’ ability to use the others. Thus, one of way to help children to become more fluent in their reading is to help them become more fluent writers. This podcast describes the 5-step writing process and strategies for generating ideas for writing topics
A teacher’s or tutors number one job is to help children fall in love with books. Once this is done 98 % of reading instruction is complete. However, to do this, you must have good books for them to read. What’s a good book? A good book is any book that a student enjoys and wants to read. This podcast describes 8 simpley ideas for helping children fall in love with books.
So how do we go about the business of teaching children to read? We don’t. Instead, we create the conditions whereby children can learn to read and develop their reading skills. As I said in the last chapter, children learn to read and write in the same way that they learned to listen and speak, and that is, by being immersed in the language and by having adults around who responded to them in appropriate ways. In this sense then, we would be more accurate if we called ourselves reading-condition-creators instead of reading teachers. This podcast presents 8 tips to keep in mind as we create conditions.
-
Help children fall in love with books.
-
Create a space every day for sustained, silent reading.
-
Allow children to make choices about their reading material.
-
Connect reading pleasure to reading practice
-
Keep your reading program simple.
-
Keep instruction simple.
-
Make reading like real life.
-
Include talk and other forms of social interaction.
Learning to read is not an isolated process. Four language processes work together to enhance the development of each individual element: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Listening and reading are the receptive processes (taking in information), and speaking and writing are the productive processes (giving out information). We might also include a fifth language process: thinking (language that takes place in your head).
In this podcast I describe some strategies and conditions that might facilitate culturally responsive teaching. Again, I will stress that these strategies and conditions by themselves do not constitute culturally responsive teaching. Instead, these can be used to address parts of the three interconnecting elements.
Zaretta Hammond defined culturally responsive teaching as . .
“An educator’s ability to recognize students’ cultural displays of learning and meaning making and respond positively and constructively with teaching moves that use cultural knowledge as a scaffold to connect what the student knows to new concepts and content in order to promote effective information processing. All the while, the educator understands the importance of being in a relationship and having a social-emotional connections to the student in order to create a safe space for learning” (Hammond, 2015, p. 15)
Gloria Ladson-Billings (2014) describes culturally responsive teaching as consisting of three interacting and interconnected elements (a) learning that focuses on students’ intellectual growth, (b) cultural competence and inclusion, and (c) critical or sociopolitical consciousness. Neither of these by themselves can be said to be culturally response teaching. It is the interaction of these three that that creates culturally responsive teaching. This provides a framework for moving us forward in our understanding of CRT. Each of these elements is described in this podcast.
I used to think that CRT was a bunch of teaching strategies. Similar to cooperative learning, these strategies would have specific directions for their implementation. And if I just learned these strategies and attached them to my educating machine, then I would be a culturally responsive teacher. And I could teach my teacher candidate students to attach these strategies to their future educating machines so they would all be culturally responsive teachers. And over time, the grand educating machine would spew forth well-educated students who all scored above average on standardized tests, and systemic racism would be cured.
Well … I was just a little right, but mostly wrong.
Values clarificationis a strategy designed to help students identify, examine, and clarify their own values (Johnson, 2006). In the past, there has some have mischaracterized of values clarification activities as trying to tell students that there is no such thing as right or wrong (see the definition of morality in the last chapter). This is not the case. Instead, these types of activities provide the platform for students to define and develop their own set of values and identify behaviors that support their values. This is always more powerful and long lasting than simply telling them what they should value or how they should behave.
To be fully teacher, one must be fully present. Being fully teacher means being fully human. It is about being in relationship. It is about caring. It is about feeling. It is about keeping children from disappearing.
Defining and understanding exactly what reading is, is an important part of teaching reading. This podcast defines reading by describing four essential elements:
-
Reading is the practice of using text to create meaning.
-
Reading is a constantly developing skill.
-
Reading integrates visual and non-visual information.
-
Reading is the act of linking one idea to another.
There are three types of activities that can be used to advance students’ moral reasoning: moral dilemmas, values clarification activities, analyzing levels and stages. This podcast addresses moral dilemmas.
Carol Gilligan (1998) contended that Kohlberg’s research excluded and devalued women’s ways of moral reasoning. His theories on moral development were put forth by a male, in a male dominant society, using only male subjects and thus, were biased in favor of men. She had a point. Using extensive interviews with girls ages 6 to 18, she postulated that women have differing moral reasoning tendencies than men. According to Gilligan, women tend to think of right and wrong (morality) in terms of caring relationships and connections whereas men tend to think in terms of rules and justice. She argued that these differences were largely a result, not of biological influences, but of social influences and gender conditioning that occurred in a context in which women’s ways of thinking were often undervalued compared to men. As society continues to evolve (hopefully), these differences will continue to diminish.
We are failing our struggling readers because we are force-feeding them all the standardized reading slop, administered in the same way, and in the same sequence as every other human being subjected to the same for-profit, one-size-fits-all, standardized reading instruction program. Struggling readers are not standardized entities. Neither should their reading interventions. Depending on students’ needs, intervention sessions for reading should include some or all of the following seven elements:
-
Word work
-
Word identification
-
Maze and cloze work
-
Writing
-
Fluency work
-
Comprehension
-
Reading practice
Lawrence Kohlberg (1984) research was not focused on behaviors, but in the subjects’ reasoning behind their behaviors. From this he developed his theory of moral development. This theory describes six stages of moral reasoning at three different levels.
I. Pre-Conventional Level
Stage 1 - Punishment.
Stage 2 - Rewards.
II. Conventional Level
Stage 3 - Social Approval.
Stage 4 - The Law.
III. Post-Conventional Level
Stage 5 - Social Contract.
Stage 6 - Universal Principle.
The Danielson Framework is an example of a filter that is commonly used to evaluate preservice and practicing teachers. The Danielson Group describes this as a framework for professional practice. Here “good teaching” is comprised of four domains: (a) planning and preparation, (b) the classroom environment, (c) instruction, and (d) professional responsibilities. The four domains are broken into 22 components. And the 22 components are further broken into 76 teeny tine separate elements.
The Danielson Group claims that “empirical studies” have shown the Framework to lead to improved student learning. This claim is false and misleading (Johnson, 2019). While there is some research to support some of the 76 teeny tiny elements, if you examine the research cited in the Danielson material you will find that much of it is questionable at best. Often it is misused or misinterpreted. As well, there is no research (none) to support the use of the Danielson Framework as being more effective than any other framework, or more effective than no framework at all for enhancing teacher effectiveness or improving student learning. It is just a bunch of stuff that somebody thought up once upon a time, and now the Danielson Group is using it to sell stuff. Imagine that. Making a profit off our students. teac
The terms “teacher professionalism” and “professional dispositions” are often used when assessing preservice and practicing teachers. But what is “teacher professionalism”? What dispositions are the “correct” ones for teachers? And who gets to decide these things?
Dispositions or Mind Control
Most teacher preparation programs address and assess three elements: knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Creasy, 2015). The dispositional element is commonly viewed as “teacher professionalism”. A disposition is a state of mind that creates an inclination to think or act in certain ways. There are both positive and negative dispositions. Examples of positive dispositions include compassion, curiosity, fortitude, and honesty. Examples of negative dispositions include pessimism, laziness, dishonesty, and indifference. These dispositions are all examples of internal states of mind. Some might also consider them character traits or even values. However, some teacher preparation programs try to mandate that all preservice teachers have specific internal states of mind. Rubrics and checklists are even created to try to document and quantify these internal states of mind. But trying to control the internal state of mind of another is a form of mind control. It is not healthy for the field of education to be in the business of mind control.
Josey was a 3rd grade student. Before our first session, I listened to her read passages at Lexile level 330 (approximately 1.9 grade level). She read 50 WPM with 97% accuracy. Seven weeks later, after 14 sessions, she read passages at Lexile level 440 (approximately 2.5 grade level). Here she read 74 WPM with 98% accuracy. Our work focused specifically on two deficit areas: reading fluency and word identification.
Currently, 2.4 million students are classified as having a learning disability and are receiving special education services. Up to 80% of these students (approximately 1,920,000) have some sort of reading disability. Approximately 3% to 5% of all students have a severe reading disability. In segregated special education settings, the general learning outcomes are lower than inclusive classrooms and reading achievement is not accelerated. The US Department of Education reported that in 2015, 70% of all students in grade 4 achieved below basic levels in reading. In 2017 it was 71%, and in 2019 it was 74%. The US Department of Education also reported that from 2002 to 2009 there were no statistically significant changes in the reading scores of students with disabilities in grades 4, 8, and 12. There are real people behind these numbers, just like Erik. Clearly, what we’re doing isn’t working. Yet the special education industry continues down the same path, insisting on costly testing and programming. Why? We are failing our struggling readers.
Erik. As teachers we tend to remember our failures. One of mine occurred in 1983, my first year of teaching. I was a 2nd grade teacher at Greenwood Elementary School and Erik was my student. I failed him miserably. I still remember him. He was a happy little guy in the fall. But as the year went along, he became less happy. He began to slump in his desk. He seemed to draw into himself. 36 years later he still lingers in my mind. Erik struggled with his reading and I failed to help him. This is his story.
There is an insidious way of silencing those who are not in lockstep with the majority in organizations and academic institutions. It is called soft bullying and microaggression. These are sometimes used to mute and muzzle minority views and dissenting voices. The results is that the divergent ideas, conflicting views, and disagreements that are essential for the health and evolution of any organization, especially academic institutions, are lost. To mute and muzzle is to engage in practices that devolve and decay the foundations of the academic institution in which they occur, and it conflicts with the standards for respectful academic discourse held by the academy.
In our current educational system, standardized tests are used to assess the quality of the student-products as they move along the 13-year conveyor belt within the education factories commonly referred to as schools. Students who have test scores that fall below a certain percentile ranking are thought to have a disability. Additional standardized tests are then given by standardized testing experts to confirm and diagnose the cause of the disability. Very much like a disease, a “special” standardized treatment is then prescribed for this disability.
These students are then sent off to Special Ed World. This is a purgatorial “special” place apart from the general education classroom where students are given the prescribed special treatment by special treatment experts. In the segregated setting of Special Ed World, the special treatment experts implement the special treatment with fidelity. However, one of the many problems with Special Ed World as currently configured is that once students become entangled in the special education machinery, they are lost forever. They rarely return.
This podcast examines four interconnecting elements within Special Ed World: (a) reading instruction, (b) data-resistant theoretical constructs, (c) paradigmatic parochialism regarding what is considered “scientifically-based” research, and (d) manipulative approaches to teaching.
It cannot be assumed at any level that people understand democratic process or know the particulars of proper meeting protocol. In this podcast we examine and describe these two elements based on Roberts Rules of Order (RRO).
Motivation is an internal state that causes us to direct attention or maintain behavior. Motivation can direct our attention and sustain our behavior toward a particular goal.
All students enter kindergarten excited and motivated to learn. They see themselves as able learners, whole and complete. But something happens in the next two years as some of our students travel down the educational conveyer belt. They begin to view themselves as defective. The system begins to view them as broken toys that need to be sent back to Santa’s workshop. In order to get the education they need, the educational bureaucracy has forced us to stamp a big label on the foreheads of these children: learning disabled. As described above, this term does not exist. All humans learn. Learning is a state of being human and being alive. With their label now in place, we send these little humans off to the rooms down the hall to get them all fixed up so they can return to the “normal” classroom with “normal” kids.
Just as all students learn, all students are motivated to do something. The problem is that some of these things are not always school-related things. But again, put yourself in the place of a student with a reading disability. How motivated you would be to come to school and fail?
Affect in education usually refer to emotions and motivation. Since these do not show up on test scores, to the educational bureaucracy, they do not exist; however, they are, arguably, the most important components in teaching and learning, especially if you are a student with a special learning need.
Motivation and emotion are perhaps the most important components when working with students with moderate to severe reading disabilities, yet it is the area that seems to be given the least amount of attention.
EMOTIONS
We think, learn, and emote with the same brain. Thus, it would be silly to think that students’ emotions would not be a factor in their ability to learn. Positive emotional experiences can enhance and promote learning; negative emotions can disrupt and prevent learning. And, since there is plenty of research to support this notion, we can say that attending to students’ emotions can be considered a research-based strategy and not simply some namby-pamby, feel-good activity designed to make liberals out of your kids.
Teaching as transmission views teaching as merely transmitting knowledge from Point A (teacher’s head) to Point B (students’ heads). Teaching as transaction views teaching as a process of creating situations whereby students are able to interact with the material to be learned in order to construct knowledge. And teaching as transformation views teach as creating conditions that have the potential to transform the learner on many different levels (cognitive, emotional, social, intuitive, creative, transpersonal, and other). Which is the correct view?
Within the academic, respectful academic discourse is expected when discussing and debating issues. Here people exchange ideas, they define and defend their positions, and they delineate points of agreement and disagreement with others. Sometimes there are very heated exchanges while discussing and debating issues. This is as it should be. Debate is an important part of the scholarly process within the academy; however, it is done using respectful academic discourse. In the academic of scholars, this is one of the standards.
Disagreements are good. Differing points of view are healthy for any organization or group. Conflicting ideas provide a broader view of the situation and more potential possibilities. You see more sides of the problem and generate more potential solutions. Questioning new ideas or proposals allows them to be fully vetted. This is how programs, policies, schools, institutions, and teacher preparation programs grow and evolve.
Embracing a variety of ideas, philosophies, and viewpoints has always been healthy. Repressing conflicting ideas, allowing only a single viewpoint has always led to extremely unhealthy situations. Sadly, idea repression occurs too often in societies, religious organizations, churches, political groups, schools, and yes, even in universities. Imagine that. And nothing good ever comes from this. Uniformity creates a stagnant unhealthy petri dish.
Uniformity is Not Possible
As well, it is not humanly possible to have complete uniformity of thought. Even in the most regimented group, military organization, religious order, sect, or church - people have slightly differing views on things. And even people in groups who try to follow a literal interpretation of a religious doctrine or holy book, or originalists who strive to understand the constitution based on the original understanding, have slightly different interpretations. The only case in which you would find uniformity of thought would be if you project all moral and intellectual authority onto a leader or group and pledged blind allegiance. But here, you would be giving up part of your humanity.
This podcast describes two starkly contrasting approaches to individualized educational programs (IEPS): A systems-centered approach and a person-centered approach.
This is the first in a serious of podcast using critical race theory to examine teacher preparation. In this podcast, seven basic ideas or common understands of critical race theory are examined.
Systemic racism has never been fully addressed in our society, our culture, and our curriculums. Simply including George Washing Carver in a social studies lesson just will not do it this time around. We need more than that. Systemic racism calls for a systemic response. This p0dcast addresses white guilt, white shame, and the history of the United States of America
I am not an expert in critical race theory or systemic racism. I am a middle age white guy trying to come to grips with systemic racism and contribute where I can. I am just an old literacy professor trying to do my part. I may not get it just right, but I am trying. In this podcast, I will try to explain some things in ways that help some people to better understand. I don’t have complete enlightenment – and again - I may not get it just right -- but I’m trying. I refuse to abdicate my responsibility to do what I can on the issue of racial equity.
John Lewis said, when you see something wrong, say something and do something.
There is something wrong. No let me say something.
Humanistic learning theory is based upon five supporting principles.
1. Students’ learning should be as self-directed as possible. In other words, students should be given choices about what they learn, how they learn, and how they demonstrate their learning, to the greatest degree possible. Choice here does not mean total choice all the time. Instead, it means as much choice as is appropriate for the situation. Choice exists on a continuum. For example, you can offer:
(a) no choice. “We’re studying the Civil War this month. This is the book we’re going to read. This is the topic you’ll be doing reports on.”
(b) a choice within a set. “I’ve put out five books for you, you can choose the one you wish to read.”
(c) a choice within a category. “We’re studying the Civil War this month, you can read any book or investigate any topic related to the Civil War.”
(d) total choice. “Find a topic that interests and inspires you for your research project. These are the criteria. This is the due date. Find a book that you love for our reading class.”
Some situations require more choice, some less choice. The goal would be to provide the minimum amount of control necessary to create a positive learning experience.
2. The subject matter to be learned should be relevant to the lives or personal interests of the students. It should be connected to the students’ lives or interests whenever possible and to the greatest extent possible. For example, when learning number facts in the primary grades, students would be asked to use them to figure out problems in real life situations. Humanistic educators find creative ways for mandated subject matter to reflect or connect with students’ lives. At the same time, space is provided within a curriculum for students to explore topics of interest to them. For example, knowing what is of interest to adolescents, humanistic educators would seek to incorporate themes related to social experiences, relationships, and defining roles and values into traditional subject areas.
3. The full spectrum of the human experience should be included in the educational experience. Emotions, relationships, creativity, imagination, intuition, and real-life problems are all part of the human experience. Including them in the educational experience enhances learning as well as the development of humans. Humanistic educators create the conditions where human beings can learn to use all these human dimensions to solve problems, make decisions, and come to know the world. As well, traditional curriculums are studied in a multidimensional context. Art, drama, music, poetry, creative writing, and other arts are used as tools along with traditional methods to explore or respond to information and ideas.
4. Schools should produce students who want to learn and know how to learn. Humanistic educators build on students’ natural desire to learn by asking them to learn about things that are relevant to their lives and by helping them to make the connections. Curriculum is designed around students' natural ways of learning and includes things about which students want to learn. As well, students are taught how to learn. That is, how to get the necessary information they need, how to critically analyze and evaluate that information, and how to use and apply this information.
5. Students learn best in a non-threatening environment. Threats come in the form of physical threats, but also social threats, emotional threats, or things that endanger one’s self esteem or phenomenological self (Combs, 1999). This occurs when schools focus more on measuring learning than they do on enhancing learning.
Psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow are generally thought to be the founders of modern humanistic learning theory (DeCarvalho, 1991). Humanistic learning theory is not easily defined. There are many views; however, all views seem to share two overriding tenets: First, humans are by their very nature evolving, self-developing creatures. As such, we have a natural inclination to learn and develop fully. Learning is enhanced when educational experiences align with these natural desires. Second, the goal of education should be to enable each person to develop his or her full potential.
HUMANISTIC EDUCATION
Humanistic learning theory is the theory upon which humanistic education is based. These terms are used interchangeably in this chapter.
Dehumanizing Education
Humanistic education is a reaction to an educational system that is seen as de-humanizing. These dehumanizing elements include the following:
-
Students are often asked to be passive learners and to learn in ways that are not natural for them. As well, the things given to them to learn are often meaningless or have no connection to their lives and experiences.
-
Manipulation is used to get students to learn and to behave in acceptable ways. Instead of building on their natural inclinations, students are manipulated by external rewards and punishment to "learn" school-related things and to be compliant. What is rarely considered are the reasons why students may not want to learn or why their behaviors may be disruptive or non-compliant.
-
One-dimensionality is perpetuated. Only the cognitive dimension of students' humanity is recognized. Ignored in classrooms and curriculum are the many aspects that make us human: our creativity, imagination, transcendence, curiosity, social natures, and our emotional dimensions.
-
Humans and human learning are too often described in terms of numbers. Experiences, traits, endeavors, and achievement that cannot be quantified and compared, are thought not to exist or to be of little value. This quantification of the educational experience is often used to compare students to a mythical norm. Such quantification creates winners and losers as students find themselves above or below a mythical "average".
-
Only traditional ways of knowing and being in the world are seen to be of worth. Views that do not align with traditional perspectives are seen to be of lesser importance. Norms and values that do not reflect the dominant culture are diminished or ignored. Only the history that tells the story of advantaged groups is seen as being worth repeating.
Humanistic Education
Humanistic education views learning in terms of personal growth and the development of each person’s full potential. Growth and development occur here, not just on an intellectual level, but also on an emotional, psychological, creative, social, and physical level (DeCarvalho, 1991; Maslow, 1971; Morris, 1978; Rogers & Freiberg, 1994; Patterson, 1973). Within this context, five goals are identified:
-
Facilitate the development of fully functioning, self-actualized human beings who have the capacity to nurture themselves, others, and their environment.
-
Instill a joy of learning and a desire to be life-long learners.
-
Promote the discovery of each student’s passions, special talents, and abilities.
-
Teach the knowledge and skills necessary for students to be good decision makers and effective problem solvers.
-
Enable students to be responsible world citizens who are able to contribute to democratic societies.
Good teaching starts with an operational definition of teaching. There are three common views of what constitutes teaching: teaching as transmission, teaching as transaction, and teaching as transformation (Miller, 1996).
Teaching as Transmission
From this perspective, teaching is the act of transmitting knowledge from Point A (teacher’s head) to Point B (students’ heads). This is a teacher-centered approach in which the teacher is the dispenser of knowledge, the arbitrator of truth, and the final evaluator of learning. A teacher’s job from this perspective is to supply students with a designated body of knowledge or set of skills in a predetermined order. Academic achievement is seen as students’ ability to demonstrate, replicate, or retransmit this designated body of knowledge or set of skills back to the teacher or to some other measuring agency or entity. From this perspective standardized tests are considered to be an apt measure of students’ learning.
Teaching as Transaction
From this perspective, teaching is the process of creating situations whereby students are able to interact with the material to be learned in order to construct knowledge. Constructivism is an educational philosophy consistent with this view. Here, knowledge is not passively received; rather, it is actively built up or constructed by students as they connect their past knowledge and experiences with new information (Santrock, 2004). And just as each student’s past knowledge and experiences are different, so too is the interpretation, understanding, and meaning of the new information that each ultimately constructs.
Teachers are not expected to pour knowledge into the heads of learners; rather, they assist learners in their construction of knowledge and development of skills by creating experiences where students’ can use their current understand of knowledge and skills to learn new knowledge and skills. Academic achievement from a constructivist perspective is seen as students’ ability to use this knowledge and skills to solve real-world problems or to create products or performances that are valued in one or more cultural settings.
Teaching as Transformation
From this perspective, teaching is creating conditions that have the potential to transform the learner on many different levels (cognitive, emotional, social, intuitive, creative, transpersonal, and other). Transformational teaching invites both students and teachers to discover their full potential as learners, as members of society, and as human beings. The ultimate transformational goal is to help develop more nurturing human beings who are better able to perceive the interconnectedness of all human, plant, and animal life (Narve, 2001).
Learning is said to have occurred when educational experiences elicit a transformation of consciousness that leads to a greater understanding of and care for self, others, and the environment. Academic achievement from this perspective is similar to self-actualization. That is, it is perceived as discovering and developing each individual’s unique talents and capabilities to the fullest extent possible. Academic achievement also involves becoming aware of the multiple dimensions of self and expanding one’s consciousness.
Yes, moral outrage over systemic racism is a wonderful thing. It is good that people are outraged (again) at the abuse and the murders at the hands of a police system that was originally designed to protect us. It is good as well that there is moral outrage over the continued disparities, the implicit bias, and the educational, political, social, and economic restrictions that advantage those in power (white privilege) while restricting and disadvantaging people of color. There should be outrage. We would lack humanity if we were not outraged. But how many times have we been outraged over the last 20, 30, 50, 400 years? Hell, how many times have we been morally outraged in the last year?
Academic writing involves saying something about something. You need information to convey, analyze, or use in some fashion. finding new information and taking careful notes is Step 1 of the academic writing process. You can’t get to Step 2 without doing Step 1.
• Step 1. Research to gather data. Usually this means reading and taking careful notes. However, data can also be collected other ways.
Students of color are disproportionately represented in special education. This is most true of the three high incidence categories: learning disabilities, emotional behavioral disorders, and intellectual disorders. The short podcast describes some of the issues here.
The super-secret academic writing process involves six steps:
1. Research to gather data. Usually this means finding sources, reading and taking careful notes. However, data can also be collected other ways.
2. Pre-drafting. As the name implies, this is what is done before writing the first draft. This involves things such as planning, creating outlines, talking with others, generating ideas, or finding structure.
3. First-draft. This is the first attempt to get ideas on the page.
4. Revise. This is the heart of the writing process. Here the writer rereads, reshapes, gets feedback, and revises many times.
5. Editing. Editing should occur only after a piece has been revised several times. Here the writer looks for spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors.
6. Share. This is the very last step. This is where the paper is sent out into the world.
This is the first in series of podcasts that will provide a foundation and framework to enhance your understanding of the various processes involved in academic writing. The purpose of these podcasts is to enable you to be an effective writer and thinker in all contexts including your personal and professional lives (outside a college environment). Thus, while I will use the term ’academic writing’, it may be helpful to perceive academic writing in a larger sense as academic and professional writing and thinking.
The basic elements of direction instruction are: (a) a purpose statement; (b) input with modeling, examples, and demonstrations, (c) guided practice with a gradual release of responsibility, (d) independent practice, and (e) review
It is not the 'what' of phonics instruction in which there are varying ideas; it is the 'how' and the 'how much' of phonics instruction. Also, all teachers, especially whole language teachers, believe in very direct and explicit instruction.
Segregated instruction for students with special learning needs is that which occurs outside a general education setting. Inclusive instruction is that which occurs within a general education setting with teachers who have the knowledge and skills to differentiate the curriculum. Research has found that inclusive classrooms result in learning outcomes as good or better than segregated classrooms.
Segregated instruction is that which occurs outside a general education classroom classroom. Inclusive instruction is that which occurs within a general education classroom. Effective inclusive classrooms have educational, social, and emotional outcomes that are as good or better than segregated classrooms.
Disability and race are both social construction designed to put human beings into categories. This podcast examines two models of disability: the medical model and the social model. The medical model views disability as something that is ‘wrong’ with a person’s body or mind. There is something wrong with the person that needs to be fixed. Sadly, this is the model that predominates special education.
Children learn between 3,000 and 4,000 words a year. By the end of elementary school they know approximately 25,000 and by the end of high school approximately 50,000 to 80,000 words. The question is: How do they learn all these words? Do they learn them from vocabulary worksheets? Do they learn them by looking them up and writing down the definition? Do they learn them as a result of direct instruction? how do children learn new words? Why is word learning important? What can teachers do to enhance word learning?
There is a bit of racism in the special education silo. I used to describe special education as a field – as in “the field of special education.” And indeed, it did used to be a field. You can see this field when reading articles from the major special education academic journals in the 1990s and early 2000s. It was a field. Not a farmer’s field but a field in the wild. This kind of field is a beautiful place. It is an ecosystem, with birds, other animals, and a wide variety of plant life. And a field in the wild is not contained. It changes over time as new seeds, plant life, and animals interact with it. The edges of the field evolve and change over time.
Education is a field. Literacy education is a field. But special education is not a field anymore; rather, it has become a silo.
This is the first in a series of podcasts that will address racism as it pertains to special education and literacy instruction. In these podcasts I am addressing the special education system, which I refer to a silo. In this podcast, I define racism.
A disclaimer: In these podcasts I am not referring to any particular school, school district, university, or teacher preparation program. I am addressing systemic racism in the larger special education silo.
The steps of the action research process are described below. Note that it is a recursive process that does not always proceed in a linear fashion (Johnson, 2012; Patterson & Shannon, 1993). Thus, some of these steps may need to be repeated several times, or they may have to be done in a different order.
-
Ask a question, identify a problem, or select a research topic.
-
Set the problem or research topic in a theoretical context.
-
Make a plan for data collection
-
Begin to collect and analyze data.
-
If necessary, allow the question or problem to change as data are collected.
-
Analyze and organize the data.
-
Make conclusions and recommendations.
-
Create a plan of action.
-
Report your findings.
The following seven descriptors provide insight as to the nature of action research.
-
Action research is systematic
-
You do not start with an answer.
-
Action research projects vary in length.
-
The study must be adequately planned before beginning to collect data
-
Observations should be regular, but they do not necessarily have to be long.
-
Action research is grounded in theory.
-
Action research is not an experimental study.
Teachers are the most significant variable in determining the quality of education students receive and the amount of learning that occurs. Yet, when it comes to discussions about how to enhance learning or improve the quality of education, this most significant variable is often ignored. To make this variable even more significant, there must be continued investment in teacher professional development.
It is naïve to think that a finished teaching product can be created in four semesters of any teacher preparation program. These programs instead provide the knowledge and skills for pre-service teachers to begin their journey toward being and becoming skillful professionals and eventually, expert teachers. Toward this end, there are two necessary elements: developing knowledge and engaging in reflective analyses. This podcast will examine both of these.
A method in education usually refers to a defined process or specific set of techniques that are used exclusively in a prescribed fashion for instruction in a particular subject area. In contrast, a pedagogical strategy is a specific teaching technique that is used selectively in a variety of subject areas for a specific purpose. Direct instruction is one such pedagogical strategy. It should not be considered a method. There are instances when direct instruction is the most effective strategy to use. There are other instances when it is the least efficient strategy to use. Like any pedagogical strategy, its effectiveness is dependent on how it is used and for what purpose.
This podcast describes strategies for attending to sight words in a meaning-based approach to reading. It ends with an examination of scope and sequence charts.
There are eight terms related to reading instruction that are commonly misunderstood: (1) reading, (2) word recognition, (3) word identification, (4) decoding, (5) a strategy, (6) a skill, (7) systematic phonics instruction, and (8) a balanced approach. This podcast is to bring clarity to these commonly misunderstood terms.
Phonics is the ability to associate sounds with letters or letter patterns. Phonics is one of four ways used to identify individual words as we read. The other three are: (a) analogy [word families], (b) morphemic awareness [prefix, suffix, affix, root], and (c) context clues [semantics]. Phonics instruction is very important, but it should never be taught as the sole component in a reading program. If reading instruction consists only of phonics, the other word identification skills will not develop. Reading instruction that is effective simultaneously develops all four word identification skills.
In viewing online discussion groups and reading various articles related to reading instruction and struggling readers, it is clear that many believe that ‘whole language’ is a bad thing. All well and good, but one should understand exactly what whole language is before rejecting it.
After wide reading, writing is probably the next best thing you can use to help struggling readers. You can often hear beginning and emergent readers sounding out words as they listen to find the correct letter-sounds. This helps in the development of the phonetic cuing system. Writing also invites students to focus on word order, grammar, and the logical structure of the language. In this way it also develops the syntactical cuing system.
Standardized tests are effective for describing how far students are from a mythical average. They are very ineffective in diagnosing the cause of reading difficulties. This podcast explains.
The teacher is the most significant variable in determining how much learning takes place in any classroom. We must attend to this most significant variable. This occurs through professional develop that focuses on four kinds of knowledge: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of learners and learning.
This podcast explains and describes social cognitive learning theory and its applications. Social cognitive learning theory involves observing the behaviors of others and the resulting rewards and punishments. Future behaviors were then based on these observations. From the perspective of social cognitive learning theory, learning is a change in mental processes that creates the capacity to demonstrate different behaviors that occurs as a result of observing others.
This podcast describes efferent and aesthetic responses to text. It explains how we should approach and respond to expository (informational) and narrative text. It also explains why some of the Common Core State Standards related to literature are absurd, silly, and ridiculous,
This podcast describes how our brain creates meaning with text from a cognitive perspective. The information processing model, sometimes called the standard memory model, is used here. It depicts the process our brain uses to take in information as well as how we analyze, organize, store, and retrieve information. It also accounts for the two-way flow of information that occurs during the reading process.
Psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow are generally thought to be the founders of modern humanistic learning theory (DeCarvalho, 1991). Humanistic learning theory is not as easily defined as some learning theories. Indeed, there are differing views on what humanistic learning theory is or might be. And like other learning theories described in this book, they share common elements. However, all views on humanistic learning seem to share three overriding tenets: First, humans are by their very nature evolving, self-developing creatures. As such, we have a natural inclination to learn and develop fully. Second, learning is enhanced when educational experiences align with these natural desires. And third, the goal of education should be to enable each person to develop his or her full potential.
In this podcast I describe 11 attributes of what I believe to be teacher professionalism. They are based on the perspective I hold as a holistic educator. You will need to identify and define your own set of attributes
Affect in education usually refer to emotions and motivation. Since these do not show up on test scores, to the educational bureaucracy, they do not exist; however, they are, arguably, the most important components in teaching and learning, especially if you are a student with a special learning need. In this podcast we examine emotion, motivation, and learning to read, with a special focus on adolescents.
Psychometricians, educational psychologists, and the companies that publish standardized have convinced people that learning can be quantified and that the numbers generated on these standardized tests mean much more than they do. They promote the false idea that larger numbers mean more learning and more effective teaching, and lower numbers mean less learning and less effective teaching. Students are then sorted into high-numbered groups and low-numbered groups.
Educational research is used to create the theories upon we design educational policies and practices are designed. Theories help to organize relevant empirical facts (empirical means they can be observed or measured), in order to create a context for understanding phenomena. Put another way, a theory is a way to explain a set of facts. If reality were a dot-to-dot picture, a theory would be a way to connect a set of data dots
Theories are built, not on a single research study, but on a collection of data gleaned from a variety of different research studies. Good theories are well substantiated, connecting a wide variety of data dots, all of which have been confirmed through experiment and observation.
Theoretical models of reading are used to understand the reading process as well as to design and evaluate instructional practices. As such, the theoretical model of reading one adheres to has tremendous impact on the type of reading instruction and interventions that are used. Described in this podcast are two common theoretical models of reading, each providing vastly different views of the reading process and struggling readers.
Some of the ideas about reading instruction that I have presented in various formats may be at odds with your previous ways of thinking about things. In fact, some of these ideas may directly conflict with what you believe to be true regarding how children learn to read and how you should teach them to read. This is good. Dissonance or disequilibrium is an important part of learning. I would invite you to neither accept nor reject these new ideas. Touch them. Carry them with you for a bit. Let them settle. See what sticks. Sort it out. This is how we grow, how we change, how we continue to evolve.
We want reading instruction for all students to be based on “scientifically based research”. In RTI students are identified for special education services based on how they respond to interventions that are supported by scientifically based research. As well, at our Universities, we are required to make sure preservice teachers receive instruction in reading methods that are supported by scientifically based research. It cannot be just any old kind of research; it must be scientifically based research. So, what exactly does this term mean? What does it take to be scientifically based research? Can only scientists do scientifically based research? Who decides what kind of research is scientifically based? What is science? What is research?
Exploring and explaining these mysteries will be the focus of this podcast.
Federal guidelines related to IEPs for reading state that special education services (instruction and interventions), should be based on “peer-reviewed research.” This podcast explores the mystery of peer-reviewed research and the National Reading Panel. There are four things to take from this podcast related to peer-reviewed research and reading instruction:
(1) It is not a perfect process, but it is a process and this process is important.
(2) The process is not without bias or flaws. Peer review does not magically make research unbiased or pure. It is not possible for human beings to have a completely objective, unbiased view of anything. Peer-review is simply another filter to try to remove some of the impurities related to bias, methodology, theoretical context, applications, and conclusions.
(3) You are the ultimate filter. You are the most important peer-reviewer. In this respect, you must always ask: Does the strategy or approach work with the students in front of you? Does it enhance their ability to create meaning with print? Does it move them forward, unimpeded, in their journey to achieve their full literacy potential? It does not matter if a strategy or approach demonstrates significant results with a large sample size if it does not work with your sample size.
(4) Federal government has many significant roles to play in enhancing the betterment of our society and improving the lives of all people. However, identifying effective reading instruction is not one of them.
If the only tool you have is a hammer all the world becomes a nail. If the only tool you have to teach reading is phonics all the world becomes a phonics worksheet. This podcast describes (a) problems with phonics-only reading programs, (b) three tips for developing phonetic cueing systems, (c) systematic phonics instruction and (d) three approaches to phonics instruction
The purpose of a shared reading lesson is to enable the whole class to share insights or have a common discussion around a book or text. Here students of varying ability levels interact with concepts, vocabulary, and ideas in authentic contexts in creative and engaging ways. And while shared reading is designed around a common text; it is not, nor should it ever become a venue for round robin reading.
There is both a science and an art to creating effective writing prompts for post-reading activities.
This study examines four interconnecting elements within Special Ed World: (a) reading instruction, (b) data-resistant theoretical constructs, (c) paradigmatic parochialism regarding what is considered “scientifically-based” research, and (d) manipulative approaches to teaching.
.An individual Orton-Gillingham course costs over $2,000 and associate level training costs $4,000 plus $250 for materials. There are various levels of training and certification that can be purchased. What you get for your money is an expensive, Humpty-Dumptian approach to reading instruction where children are taught a specified list of reading subskills in a predetermined order and in a specified way. the Orton-Gillingham magic ingredient is “multisensory” instruction. This means it uses visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities when teaching. In other words, as children are learning, they see things, hear things, and do things.
This is called multimodal instruction. Elementary teachers have been using it for years. But an effective meaning-based approach to reading instruction is even more multimodal in its multimodality. It includes imagination, emotion, and social interaction as well as visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities. So effective meaning-based reading instruction would have children see things, hear things, do things, imagine things, emote things, and say things. In this podcast I describe 21 multimodal instructional strategies. And I will not charge you $4,000 plus $250 for materials.
Fidelity is a term often misused by the designers of commercially-prepared reading interventions and by decision-makers outside the classroom. Teachers are told they must implement an evidence-based program with “fidelity”. This term has been misinterpreted in an educational setting to mean following the instructional recipe exactly as written. In other words, fidelity means that teachers are required to follow the directions and do exactly what the program designers tell them to do without question or variation when implementing a reading intervention.
Roseline Fink (Fink, 1996; Fink, 1998) Interviewed successful men and women with dyslexia to see why they were able to be so successful despite their profound “disability”. She discovered that all these successful adults were all allowed to immerse themselves and read in areas of interest as children. Here, they developed expertise, built conceptual and vocabulary knowledge and became familiar with the schemes and structures of the types of texts found in their field. This background knowledge was more important for facilitating reading accuracy and comprehension than letter clues. That is, marginal decoders used context to create meaning with print. Low-level skill mastery was not a prerequisite for higher level thinking and skill construction.
Intervention sessions for students with dyslexia should occur no less than four days a week and should include variations of seven elements: (1) word work, (2) word identification, (3) maze and cloze work, (4) comprehension, (5) reading practice, (6) fluency work, and (7) writing.
Classroom resources and supports for students who dyslexia should include variation of nine elements: (1) emotional support, (2) audio books, (3) speech-to-text programs, (4) instruction in smaller parts, (5) pause and process time, (6) simplify homework assignments, (7) guided notes or outlines for lectures and reading assignments, (8) assistive technology, (9) peer mediated learning activities
As you read sentences on a page your eyeballs do not move from left to right, letter-to-letter, word-to-word in a straight, steady line. If you were able to attach little lasers to your eyeballs you would see that your eyes are actually hovering and jumping about like a hummingbird. They move unevenly, go back occasionally, skip some words, and fixate on others. These small, rapid, jerky movements that your eyes make are called saccades. It only appears that you are moving them from left to right in a straight line because your brain is doing what human brains naturally do: they create order out of chaos.
Your brain tricks you into thinking that you process every word when in fact you do not. Instead your eyeballs fixate on only about 60% of the words you read. With unfamiliar material you fixate on more words; with more familiar material you fixate on fewer words. This means your eyes dance right over 40% of the words without stopping. That’s what you do when you read. It only appears as if you are reading every word because your brain is filling in the blanks.
This is my 3rd podcast related to dyslexia. It addresses the International Dyslexia Association and Orton-Gillingham reading "instruction" and state laws requiring a certain type of reading instruction for struggling readers.
Language experience activities are an effective strategy to use with beginning level readers. Here students dictate an experience or story to the teacher. The teacher then records what students say. I strongly recommended that you use this activity with each intervention session for two reasons: First on an interpersonal level, language experience activities enable you to make personal connections with your students. You can find out what is going on in their lives as well as what they find interesting or significant. It also creates conversation around these events. This enhances your ability to relate to your students. Relationships are important in any kind of teaching, but especially so when dealing with struggling readers, as self-efficacy and motivation are often low with.
Second on an instructional level, language experience activities enable students to practice reading using words that are in their lexicon as well as their experiences and ideas. This make learning to read easier. Analytic phonics (modeled below) can then be used to develop letter-sound relationships with these familiar words and experiences.
Language experience activities can be used with large groups, small groups, pairs, or individual students.
Reading practice is incredibly important. Extensive reading has been linked to improvement in general knowledge, vocabulary, spelling, verbal fluency, and reading comprehension. Also, the amount of reading students do is positively correlated with word identification skills, academic achievement, comprehension, reading fluency, and writing. Finally, increasing the time spent reading independently has been shown to be an effective way to reduce the gap between high and low achieving readers.
Students with dyslexia need more intense versions of the types of reading instruction that occurs within a general education setting. Intensity here refers to (a) more time, (b) more time-on-task, (c) more time engaged in authentic literacy activities [reading and writing], and (d) smaller instructional groups (3 to 7 students). It should include variations of the following seven elements:
1. Word work.
2. Word identification.
3. Maze and cloze work.
4. Comprehension.
5. Reading practice.
6. Fluency work.
7. Writing
Depending on what study is cited and what definition of reading and reading deficiency is used, anywhere from 6% to 20% of students are what might be called “struggling readers”. Also depending on studies and definitions, anywhere from 3% to 5% of students are severely struggling readers. Terms like “reading disability”, “severe reading disability” and even “dyslexia: have been used with this group. This is the focus of this podcast
When assessment looks different from instruction and practice, you will often get results that under-represent students’ actual ability. Removing a reading event from its meaningful context during assessment creates an artificial, non-reading event. A valid assessment for reading should look, to the greatest extent possible, like real reading
There are two basic approaches to early literacy instruction: A skills-based approach and a child-centered approach. The podcast describes each.
In this and interview with one of my students, Madisen Paulseth. She provides her views of learning and becoming a special education teacher.
There are four basic word identification strategies: (a) morphemic analysis, (b) context clues, (c) analogy, and (d) phonics. Direct and explicit instruction related to all four strategies should be included as part of all students’ classroom reading instruction. This podcast describes morphemic analysis
This podcast describes and explains theories in the context of education and education research, human learning, and four types of knowledge necessary to become and expert teacher.
This is an interview with a student in one of my classes. She tells us a little about learning and her decision to become a special education teacher.
This interviews two students in my essential learning theories class about their perspectives as teachers.
This is an interview with YouTuber Sven Johnson about learning, learning theories, and life as a youtuber.
As you read this page your eyes do not move from left to right, letter-to-letter, word-to-word in a straight, steady line. Your brain simply gives the impression that they do. Eye movement research shows that your eyes move unevenly across the page, going back occasionally, skipping some words, and fixating on others. The small, rapid, jerky movements that your eyes make are called saccades. Where your eyes stop is called a fixation. A regression is when your eye goes back to check on a word.
While this concept of fidelity may be appropriate for experimental research where control and treatment groups need to follow strict parameters in order to isolate a variable; it is neither effective nor appropriate when educating real students in the uncontrolled confines of the real world. , it would be a form of educational malpractice to insist that teachers follow a recipe with “fidelity”. In fact, this would prevent them from being able to adequately meet the needs of their students.
Parents are wondering how to handle reading at home during the COVID-19 or during the summer months. This podcast offers some simple tips.
Learning theories are the basis for all that is. This is an interview with one of the outstanding students in my class, Tyler Danielson.
Large unit phonics is based on the brain’s natural inclination to notice patterns and complete configurations based on partial data. When we look at words on the page, we tend to notice letter patterns much more so than individual letters. This podcast describes two activities: shared reading for large unit phonics and word sorts.
There are three types of phonics instruction: synthetic phonics, analytic phonics, and large unit phonics. In a meaning-based approach to word work, they should all be included.
This podcast described scaffolded oral reading (ScORe) and provided some tips for using the language experience approach.
The language experience approach, or language experience activity, is a powerful strategy to use with struggling or beginning readers. Here readers practice reading using words and concepts within their experience.
This podcast describes a strategy to develop reading fluency for severely struggling readers, or any other readers reading at RL 1 or RL 2. The materials for this strategy can be found at www.Readocity.com
WPM (words-per-minute) scores should be used to document reading fluency program NOT WCPM (words-correct-per-minute). This podcast explains why and describes two fluency strategies.
Round robin reading is when a teacher goes around the reading table or class and asks students to read parts of a text out loud. This should never be used. This podcast describes 7 alternatives to round robin reading.
This video podcast explains two terms related to reading fluency: expression and prosody. Reading with expression is not at all important. Reading prosody is.
This podcast provides a brief overview of reading fluency and describes why standardized, norm-references words-per-minute (WPM) rates should be given limited attention.
This podcast describes eight essential terms related to reading instruction that commonly misunderstood: 1. Reading, 2.word recognition, 3. word identification, 4. decoding, 5. a strategy, 6. a skill, 7. systematic phonics instruction, and 8. a balanced approach.
This podcast describes the three big ideas related to effective reading interventions: 1. They should be more intense versions of good classroom reading instruction, 2 they should contain a balanced approach to reading instruction, and 3. They should be taught be expert reading teachers.
This podcast describes the seven elements necessary for effective daily reading instruction: 1. Daily reading practice, 2. social interaction and conversation around good books, 3. authentic writing experiences, 4. activities and instruction to develop all three cueing systems used for word recognition, 5. activities and instruction for word identification strategies, 6. comprehension instruction, and 7. activities to develop word knowledge (vocabulary).
What do you do when you have a student who refuses to write. This short podcast provides some tips.
Educational research is used to create the theories upon which we design educational policies and practices. Theories help to organize relevant empirical facts (empirical means they can be observed or measured), in order to create a context for understanding phenomena. This podcast describes two theoretical models of reading.